PB MINS 08-30-66 - 04-09-68MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
SOUTH MIAMI PlANNING AND ZONING BOARD
AUGUST 30, 1966
Present: J. C. Shaw, Chairman
Myron Keys, Vice Chairman
James Bowman
Sidney Efronson
James Ferguson
D, K, MacVicar
Carl Paden
Harold Yake1y
Absent: C. R. Gibbs
NOT APPROVED
Mayor Taylor, Councilmen Bramson, Doyle and Willis, Zoning Director
Eastwood, Public Service Director Bach and Public Works Director
Masson were also in attendance.
***
Chairman Shaw called the meeting to order and read Notice of Public
Hearing #66-32, application of J. F, Diehl, for a variance of rear
setback to 19 l/Z', variance of side-street setback to 9', variance
of frontage and area requirements to permit two 50 x 90' building
sites. Requirements of RU-1B: 50' front with 5,000 sq. ft. of land,
Z5' setback front and rear, 7 1/2' setback inside lot line, and 15'
setback on side street. Subject property: Lots Zl thru 24 Block 2
Pines, PB 13/2. Location: SE corner of SW 62 Avenue and 63 Street.
No one appeared for the application.
Zoning Director's Recommendation: In order to justify the granting
of a variance the applicant must show unique or unusual hardship. In
this case the applicant failed to appear. Therefore, the basis for
this request is unknown. Denial recommended.
Mr. Yake1y made a motion that this application be denied without
prejudice. Mr. Keys seconded the motion.
The question was called and the vote polled. All members voted YES,
Polled: Yes -8; No -0
***
The Chairman read Notice of Public Hearing #66-33, application of
McDonald's 1-Hour Cleaners, Inc. for a change of zone from C-1 to
C-3 on Lots 1,2 Block 2 Westerfield Manor, Sec. 1,2, PB 18/47.
Location: 5796 Bird Road.
Mr. Stuart Markus, 925 Seybold Building, appeared for the application.
He stated that this is the same operation as the McDonald's on the
highway but will be attended at all times. It is not a coin laundry.
The materials used are non-combustible, non-flamab1e and have no odor.
The size of the building is 14 x 50'. He feels this is a good location
for a business of this type and that it behooves the City to have
more business of this kind. The applicant is a lessee. No one ap-
peared in opposition,o
Zoning Director's Recommendation: There is presently no C-3 zoning
on Bird Road frontage in this area. Granting of C-3 zoning on two small
lots would constitute "spot zoning" and a precedent which would en-
courage additional requests for liberal zoning. Denial recommended.
Mr. Keys made a motion that this application be recommended to the
City Council for denial. Mr. Yake1y seconded the motion.
The question was called and the vote polled. All members voted YES o
Polled: Yes -8; No -0
The Chairman read Notice of Public Hearing #66-34, application of
McDonald Appliances for a variance of setback requirements as applied
to signs, to permit a flat fascia sign 34 feet from the existing center
line of Sunset Drive (100' zoned R/W) on Lot 3 Coopers, PB 4/152.
Location: 5863 Sunset Drive.
Mr. Co L. Diffenderfer of Aco1ite Neon Signs, 4710 NW 37 Avenue, ap-
peared for the applicant. He stated that Mr. McDonald is attempting
to install the same type sign that is already existing in the area.
The sign stands vertical and has an illuminated, plastic face. The
sign will not project beyond the building into the right-of-way.
Zoning Director's Recommendation: The proposed sign replaces a
previously existing sign. It is proposed that the sign will be mounted
on a structure which presently extends into the zoned right-of-way;
however, the area which the structure and sign overhang has never been
dedicated. Other structures in the immediate area extend farther into
the zoned right-of-way than the proposed sign. Approval recommended.
Mr. Efronson made a motion that the application be denied. Motion
failed for want of a second.
Mr. Ferguson made a motion that the application be recommended to the
City Council for approval. Mr. Keys seconded the motion.
-2-
The question was called and the vote polled.
***
Polled: Yes -7; No-1
Yes: Messrs. Bowman, Ferguson, Keys, MacVicar, Paden
Yake1y and Shaw
No: Mr. Efronson
The Chairman read Notice of Public Hearing #66-35, application of
A & E Investment Company, requesting a change of zone from C-1 to
C-2 on Lots 12,13,14 and W 25' Lot 15 Revised plat of Poinciana Park,
PB 41/41. Location: SE corner of SW 62 Avenue and Sunset Drive.
Mr. Robert Rutledge, attorney, 7233 SW 57 Court, appeared for the
applicant. Mr. Peter Jones of A & E Investment Company has a con-
tract to sell the subject property to Humble Oil Company. The
property has 175' frontage on Sunset Drive which is larger than is
ordinarily provided for a service station site.
The service station will be a residential red brick, gable type
station. A contract has been drawn up to maintain the landscaping.
The City of Miami gave a citation to Humble Oil for the good land-
scaping of their stations.
There will be two ramps and traffic will not present a problem.
He stated that Mr. Maston O'Neal, owner of the 7211 Building, is
in complete agreement with this application.
Mr. Peter Jones, 1600 First National Bank Building, spoke as a
representative of Humble Oil. The company is trying to improve the
service station image. Humble Oil has a landscape contract to main-
tain all of its stations. This is a petroleum products outlet and
the only mechanical work to be done On the premises will conform to
the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. K. F. Kniskern, 7550 Red Road, Owner of property directly across
Sunset Drive, has plans under way to build an office building. He
believes the proposed service station would be very beneficial to
the area. He is very much in favor of the application.
The file contains a letter of objection from South Miami Federal
Savings and Loan.
Zoning Director's Recommendation: The proposed C-2 zoning is more
liberal than any zone classification within several hundred feet.
-3-
To zone a single small tract to C-2 classification at this location
would constitute "spot zoning". Denial recommended.
Mr. Efronson made a motion that the application be recommended to
the City Council for denial. Mr. Yakely seconded the motion.
The question was called and the vote polled. All members voted YES.
Polled: Yes -8; No -0
***
The Chairman read Notice of Public Hearing #66-36, application of the
City of South Miami. Structures Overhanging R/W. Mr. Paden read
the committee's report. After discussion Mr. Paden made a motion to
defer this application to permit the recommendations of the committee
to be reduced to ordinance form. Mr. Bowman seconded the motion.
The question was called and the vote polled. All members present
voted YES.
Polled: Yes -8; No -0
***
In Executive Session:
of July 26, 1966. Mr.
as individually read.
The Chairman called for approval of the minutes
Paden made a motion that the minutes be approved
Mr. Yakely seconded the motion.
The question waS called and the vote polled. All members present
voted YES.
Polled: Yes -8; No -0
***
Remarks: The Chairman directed the Zoning Director to take the
necessary steps for a hearing to consider whether dry cleaning estab-
lishments should be per-uitted in a more restrictive "one tha'l C·.3.
***
There being no further business before the Board, the meeting
waS adjourned at 16:00 P.M.
-4-
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
SOUTH MIAMI PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
SEPTEMBER 27, 1966
Present: J, C, Shaw, Chairman
Myron Keys, Vice Chairman
James Bowman
Sidney Efronson
C, R, Gibbs
Carl Paden
Harold Yakely
Absent: James Ferguson
D, K, MacVicar
Public Service Director Bach and Public Works Director Masson
were also in attendance.
***
Chairman Shaw called the meeting to order and read Notice of
Public Hearing #66-38, application of Jerry Montgomery,
request for change of zone from RU-4B to C-3 to permit a
contractor's storage yard on lot located at 6075 SW 63 Terrace.
Lot 73 Block 13 Franklin, PB 5/34.
Mr. Montgomery appeared for the application. He stated
that he had talked with the home owners in the area and they
had no objection to his request. He stated that he would
store sand, block, equipment, etc. He will build a wall and
is willing to do whatever is necessary, such as plsstering
the wall.
Mrs. Sanchez, 5650 SW 74 Street, appeared as an objector.
Zoning Director's Recommendation: Approval of the requested
use in the area would constitute spot zoning. Denial recommended.
Mr. Keys made a motion to recommend to Council that this ap-
plication be denied, Mr. Paden seconded the motion.
The question was called and the vote polled. All members present
voted YES,
Polled: Yes -7; No -0
***
The Chairman read Notice of Public Hearing #66-39, appli-
cation of Gilbert McDonald, request for change of zone from
C-l to C-3 to permit a contractor's storage yard at 6930 SW
59 Place. Lots 5,6,21,22 Block 15 Townsite of Larkins, PB 2/105.
Mr. Neiger, 6129 Sunset Drive, of C. A, Carter, Realtors,
appeared for the applicant. He explained that Mr. McDonald
will use the existing house as an office and storage for
material. He wishes to park one or two panel trucks over night.
Everything will be stored inside at the present time. He may
want to build a storage bin for pipe on the rear of the property.
Mrs. Sanchez, 5650 SW 74 Street, spoke in favor of the appli-
cation. She does not see how the proposed use could make the
area any worse.
Mr. Ayers of Ayers Insurance spoke in favor of the application.
Mr. Braden, 5952 SW 70 Street, spoke in objection because he
feels this is spot zoning which he does not favor.
Mr. Archie W. Freelove, 5965 SW 70 Street, spoke in favor of
the application. He was the former manager of all this property
and feels a change of zone would be beneficial to the City as
well as the owners.
Zoning Director's Recommendation: Approval of the requested
use in this area would constitute spot zoning. Denial recommended.
Mr. Keys made a motion to defer this application until the next
regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board. Mr. Efronson
seconded the motion.
The question was called and the vote polled. All members presenr
voted YES.
Polled: Yes -7; No -0
**
The Chairman read Notice of Public Hearing #66-36, application
of the City of South Miami. Structures Overhanging R/W.
Mr, Gibbs made a motion to defer this application until the
next regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board. Mr.
Bowman seconded the motion.
The question was called and the vote polled, All members
present voted YES,
Polled: Yes; 7 No -0
***
Mr. Paden made a motion that the minutes of August 30, 1966
be approved as individually read. Mr. Yakely seconded the
motion.
***
The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 P.Mo
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
SOUTH MIAMI PLANNING BOARD
OCTOBER 11, 1966
Chairman Shaw called the meeting to order at 8:00 P.M. and
the Pledge of Allegiance was given.
Present: J. C. Shaw, Chairman
Myron Keys, Vice Chairman
Carl Paden
James Ferguson
Absent: James Bowman
Sidney Efronson
Do K. MacVicar
Councilman Bramson, Zoning Director Eastwood, Public Works
Director Masson and Public Service Director Bach were also in
attendance.
***
Chairman Shaw read Notice of Public Hearing #66-40, application
of Elvira Wightman, for a variance of apartment floor area
requirement and off-street requirements to permit conversion of
a 240 sq. ft. office to an additional apartment. Minimum
floor area requirement for apartments is 500 sq. ft. Proposed
conversion would result in a 23-unit apartment house requiring
33 off-street parking spaces. Applicant has 22 spaces avail-
able. Subject Property: Lot 1, Block 1, Lake Heights, PB 46/32
and E 62.69' of W~ NE% NW\ NW\ less the S 421' less W 275' and
less N 50' of Section 24-54-40. Located at 6444 Bird Road.
Mr. Gene Davison, realtor, appeared for Mr. & Mrs. Wightman. He
stated that these people are nationals of Columbia in South
America and want to be present. He requested a thirty (30)
day deferment.
Mr. Ferguson made
November 8, 1966.
voted YES.
a motion to defer this hearing until
Mr. Keys seconded the motion. All members
Polled: Yes -4; No -0
***
Mr. Ferguson made a motion that the minutes of September 27,
1966 be approved as individually read. Mr. Keys seconded the
motion.
***
Deferred Items:
#66-39, Gilbert McDonald
Mr, Charles Neiger, real estate salesman for C, A, Carter
Realty, appeared for Mr, McDonald, He stated that Mr, McDonald
wishes to purchase this property and establish an electrical
contracting business on the premises, There is a frame house
on the front of the property which he would convert to an office
building, He would like to install air-conditioning and make
several changes inside, At a future date when the improvements
in the area have been completed, he would replace this building
with a CBS building for storage of his equipment, trucks, etc,
It would also house offices, Mr, Paden asked about outside
storage, Mr, Neiger was not sure as to requirements, After
some discussion, a deferment was requested to permit Mr,
McDonald to appear and state his needs,
Mr, Paden made a motion for deferment until the next regular
meeting, Mr, Keys seconded the motion,
The question was called and the vote polled:
Yes: Messrs. Shaw, Keys and Paden
No: Mr, Ferguson
#66-36, Structures Overhanging R/W
Mr. Paden made a motion that the Board approve the report of
the committee appointed to study projections and encroach-
ments into right-of-way of Sunset Drive and recommend to the
City Council that the Zoning Code be amended to permit limited
encroachments in business districts in accordance with the
recommendations etated in paragraph 7 of the committee report
dated June 14, 1966. Mr. Keys seconded the motion.
The question was called and the vote polled. All members
voted YES,
Polled: Yes -4; No -0
***
Remarks:
Councilman Bramson appeared and stated that the City had a
Zoning Ordinance but he had been unable to locate any official
action on a Master Plan, He feels that such an official
Master Plan improves the City's position in all cases in which
-2-
the zoning laws are attacked legally, He then inquired as to
the status of a Master Plan in South Miami,
The Zoning Director explained that two items were involved
in the area of zoning legality,
The first is the Overall Comprehensive Plan, Prior to Zoning
Regulations being adopted there must be public hearings to
give residents and property owners an opportunity to be heard,
The plan then adopted must apply to the entire area of the
governmental entity in order to be adequate, These are the
only requirements the Overall Comprehensive Plan has to meet,
Subsequent zone changes do not affect the validity of the
Comprehensive Plan,
A Master Plan is a completely different proposition in that
it is merely the opinion of a professional planner and has
no legal validity, It is much the same thing as an architect's
rendition of a desirable plan of a building for a specific
site, or a doctor's proposed treatment for a complicated dis-
order, In other words, it is not the law,
This does not prevent a Master Plan from being a very valuable
item to have around, First, the Federal Government is more
and more making the existence of a Master Plan a condition
precedent to Federal grants, Second, the testimony of expert
witnesses is becoming more and more important in the winning
of zoning cases, The expert witness whose testimony has most:
credibility is usually the author of the Master Plan, There-
fore, it is desirable to have your planner as easily accessible.
The City of South Miami has recently requested the Hetro-
po1itan Dade County Planning Department to prepare an applIcation
for a 701 grant for a Master Plan for South Miami, ThIs
method of operation will accomplish several things. It will
result in the plan being prepared by the best planning servke
available, It will insure that the plan is compatible with the
surrounding area, It will insure that expert witnesses are
readily available when needed, And, a 701 grant will. result
in 2/3 of the cost being borne by the government,
Mr. Ferguson made a motion that the City Council investigate
the different avenues of obtaining a Master Plan and the ob-
taining of Federal monies for planning services, Mr, Keys
seconded the motion,
The question was called and the vote polled,
Polled: Yes -4; No -0
***
-3-
Mr. William Nimberg, 7049 SW 66 Avenue, and Mr. Robert W.
Gardner, 7871 SW 69 Avenue spoke.
They stated that they are officers in the South Miami Home
Owners Association and offered their services to the Plan-
ning Board.
The meeting adjourned at 9:10 P.M.
L
*
*
MINUTES OF THE REGUIAR MEETING OF THE
SOUTH MIAMI PIANNING BOARD
OCTOBER 25, 1966
Chairman Shaw called the meeting to order at 8:00 P.M. and the Pledge
of Allegiance waS given.
Present: J< C. Shaw, Chairman
Myron Keys, Vice Chairman
James Ferguson
D. K. MacVicar
Carl Paden
Absent: James Bowman
Sidney Efronson
Councilman Bramson, City Attorney Hardie and Public Works Director
Masson were also in attendance.
***
Mr. Paden made a motion that the minutes of October 11, 1966 be ap-
proved as individually read. Mr. Ferguson seconded the motion.
***
Chairman Shaw reopened deferred Public Hearing 1166-39, application of
Gilbert McDonald for a change of zoning from C-l to C-3 to permit a
contractor's storage yard at 6930 SW 59 Place. Lots 5,6,21,22 Block 15
Townsite of Larkins, PB 2/105.
Mr. Neiger of C< A. Realtors, 6129 Sunset Drive,appeared for the ap-
plicant and said there was no further information on the application.
He stated that Mr. McDonald had been notified of the meeting.
City Attorney Hardie gave his interpretation of commercial parking -
"A commercially operated parking lot."
Mr. Keys made a motion to recommend to the City Council that this ap-
plication be denied without prejudice. The motion failed for want of a
second.
Mr. Ferguson made a motion to recommend to the City Council that this
application be denied. Mr. Paden seconded the motion.
The question was called and the vote polled:
Yes -4. Messrs. Shaw, Keys, Ferguson and Paden
Abstained. Mr. MacVicar (not at previous meeting)
***
Zoning Director's recommendation:
area .. muld constitute spot zoning.
Approval of the requested use in the
Denial recommended.
Remarks:
Mr. Paden brought up the question as to whether or not the members
of the appointed boards should submit a formal acceptance.
The Chairman requested the Acting Zoning Director inquire if the
members were required to submit a formal acceptance to the Board.
Mr. Keys suggested that a study be made by the Board to standardize
the use classifications of the City with those of Dade County. The
consensus was that the Board ask for direction from the Council to
determine whether or not the Board should undertake such a study.
Council Bramson reported that the Liaison Committee of the Dade
League of Municipalities and Metropolitan Dade County Commission had
this proposal under study at the present time.
Mr. Shaw suggested that the Zoning Division prepare a detailed form
that would tell the applicants for zoning changes what is required
of them in the way of preparation for presenting their case to the
Planning Board.
Mr. Ferguson pointed out that under the new organization of the Board
that if the Board defers an item on its agenda it will still go
before the Council. Mr. Hardie concurred with Mr. Ferguson and stated
that the Planning Board has no right to-defer and the applicant has
no right to ask for deferment. Mr. MacVicar asked for clarification
on the functions of the newly organized Board. Mr. Bramson explained
that the Planning Board will function exactly as before the revision
with the exception that there will be seven instead of eleven members.
He further stated that the Board is an advisory body making recom-
mendations to the City Council.
Mr. Shaw stated that the Florida Planning and Zoning Conference will
be held in Clearwater on November 9 through 12. He urged all members
of the Board to attend.
Mr. Paden suggested that the Board adopt a set of operating rules. He
will make available to the members the set used by the Dade County
Zoning Board for their study.
Mr. Shaw urged the members to be sure to watch their attendance. The
new ordinance requires attendance or the Mayor is required to replace
the members who have been absent for a period of sixty days.
***
The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 P.M.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
SOUTH MIAMI PLANNING BOARD
NOVEMBER 8, 1966
Chairman Shaw called the meeting to order at 8:00 P.M.
and the Pledge of Allegiance was given.
Present: J. C. Shaw, Chairman
Myron Keys, Vice Chairman
James Bowman
Absent:
Carl Paden
Sidney Efronson
James Ferguson
D. K. MacVicar
NOT APPROVED
Zoning Director Eastwood, City Attorney Hardie and Public
Works Director Masson were also in attendance.
***
Mr. Keys made a motion that the minutes of October 25, 1966
be approved as individually read. Mr. Paden seconded the
motion.
***
Chairman Shaw reopened deferred Public Hearing #66-40, ap-
plication of Elvira Wightman, requesting a variance of apart-
ment floor area requirement and off-street parking require-
ments to permit conversion of a 240 square foot office to an
additional apartment. Minimum floor area requirement for
apartments is 500 square feet. Proposed conversion would
reault in a 23-unit apartment house requiring 33 off-street
parking spaces. Applicant has 22 spaces available.
Subject Property: Lot 1 Block 1 Lake Heights, PB 46/32 and
E 62.69' of W\ NE~ NW~ NW~ less the S 421' less W 275' and
less N 50' of Section 24-54-40. Location: 6444 Bird Road.
Mr. PhiliP Edelman, attorney, 790 NW 54 Street, appeared for
the applicant and stated that his client was still in
Columbia, South America. Mr. Edelman stated that when the
applicant purchased this property the bill of sale and deed
specified 23 units. The mortgage was also obtained on 23 units.
Therefore, he is asking for two variances: One that the
efficiency unit be granted as it has all the facilities that
constitute an apartment and that one more parking space be
granted.
Zoning Director's Recommendation: Permits are required to
alter structures and change uses. Where such alterations
and changes are made to existing structures, regulations in
existence at the time of alterations must be complied with.
The subject apartment house has a poor off-street layout at
best and a maximum of 22 usuable and legal spaces. To permit
the additional apartment would have the effect of condoning
an illegal conversion of use. Denial recommended.
Mr. Paden made a motion to recommend to City Council that
this application be denied. Mr. Keys seconded the motion.
The question was called and the vote polled: All members
present voted YES.
Yes -4 No -0
Chairman Shaw read Public Hearing #66-41. The South Miami
Lions Club application for a temporary permit to sell Christ-
mas trees from a temporary structure located at approximately
5949 Sunset Drive. NW corner of Sunset Drive and SW 59 Place.
City Attorney Hardie stated that there is no provision in the
Zoning Ordinance for granting a temporary permit.
Mr. Clayton Collins, 7250 SW 61 Court, stated that for the last
fifteen years the Lions Club has sold Christmas trees for the
benefit of the eye bank. This has always been done by just
granting permission.
Mr. Paden made a motion that this item be referred to Council
without a recommendation due to the fact that there is no
legal way for the Board to handle it. Mr. Keys seconded the
motion.
The question was called and the vote polled: All members
present voted YES.
Yes -4 No -0
A committee consisting of Mr. Paden and Mr. Keys was appointed
to study the rules of procedure for the Planning Board sub-
mitted by Mr. Paden at a previous meeting and subsequently
draft a set of rules for the present Board.
Mr. Eastwood reported that the Zoning study for Sunset Drive
will be available from the Dade County Planning Department
in approximately two weeks. He also stated that a study had
been ordered for the area starting at SW 68 Street south to
SW 72 Street and from SW 59 Place west to SW 62 Avenue.
Mr, Eastwood commented that no progress has ever been made
on previous attempts to standardize the zoning classifi-
cations county wide, He noted that the South Miami Zoning
Ordinance is similar to the Dade County Zoning Ordinance
in some areas, He felt it would be fruitful for the Board
to make a study of the business uses with the idea of
expanding the classifications and standardizing with Dade
County business classifications, The Board requested in-
formation on the status of any studies made to standardize
the zoning classifications county wide, Mr, Paden suggested
that if no progress has been made to date that the Board
undertake such a study to standardize the use classifications
of the City with those of Dade County,
***
Mr, William Lemberg, 7049 SW 66 Avenue stated that he had
no objection -and could not imagine anyone in South Miami
objecting -to the sale of Christmas trees by the Lions Club.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 f. M,
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
SOUTH MIAMI PLANNING BOARD
NOVEMBER 29, 1966
Chairman Shaw called the meeting to order at 8:00 P.M. and
the Pledge of Allegiance was given.
Present: J. C. Shaw, Chairman
Myron Keys, Vice Chairman
James Bowman
Sidney Efronson
James Ferguson
D. K. MacVicar
Carl Paden
Public Works Director Masson
***
Mr. Paden made a motion that the minutes of the November 8,
1966 meeting be approved as individually read. Mr. Keys
seconded the motion.
***
Chairman Shaw read Notice of Public Hearing #66-42, appli-
cation of A & E Investment Company, requesting a change of
zoning from C-l to C-2, Humble Oil Company, Subject Property
Lots 12,13,14 and W 25' L 15 revised plat of Poinciana Park,
PB 41/41, approximately 6190 Sunset Drive.
Mr. Robert C. Rutledge, Jr., attorney, 7321 SW 57 Court ap-
peared for the applicant. He stated that this item was
previously before the Board, but at that time no plan of
development was submitted. The Humble Oil Company has since
prepared a plan which was filed with this application. The
the plot plan includes a landscaping plan and a rendering by
which they will be bound.
Mr. Rutledge read into the record three letters in favor of
the application:
Mr. Maston G. O'Neal, Jr., owner of the 7211 Building
Mr. Kenneth F. Kniskern, 7550 Red Road
Mr. John Slocum, 6200-10 Sunset Drive
The following appeared in objection:
Mr. Samuel Goldstein, 6815 SW 69 Terrace. He stated
that this same property came before the Board for rezoning a
short time ago and was turned down 0 He stated there have been
no changes since then and he can see no reason to change the
zoning now o
The following letters of objection were noted:
Wo Lo Sauls, 7220 SW 61 Court
Lo Reynolds, 7240 SW 61 Court
8M Federal Savings Loan Association, 6075 Sunset Drive
Zoning Director's Recommendation: The proposed C-2 zoning is
more liberal than any zone classification within several
hundred feeto To zone a single small tract to C-2 classifi-
cation at this location would constitute "spot zoning" 0
Denial recommended 0
Mro MacVicar made a motion to recommend to the City Council
that this application be denied o Mro Paden seconded the motion o
The question was called and the vote polled: All members
present voted YES o
Polled: Yes -7; No -0
***
Chairman Shaw read Notice of Public Hearing #66-43, application
of Horne, Stewart, Penney and Crane for change of zoning from
RU-l to RU-40 Lot 8 Field Villas, PB 47/98, Lot 9 Field Villas,
PB 47/98, Lot 6 Messer, PB 59/4, Lot 6 Block 2 Fairglade Manor,
PB 45/79 0
Mro Rutledge, attorney, 7321 SW 57 Court, appeared for the
applicationo He stated that no plans were being submitted with
the app1ication o He stated that property immediately to the
west of subject property had been designated for Ru-4 use
under the recent study·by the Board o The applicants are un-
able to sell their property because of the Mayan Towers and the
Mayan Village complex to the west o
The proposed sewage development will be located along the front
of the subject lots, therefore he feels that apartment house
development should extend south to 76 Street o He requested
that the application be approved or that the area be restudied
and that the proposed apartment area be extended realistically
to give property owners in the area re1ief o
Mro Harry Penney, 5800 SW 73 Terrace, appeared in favor of the
application o He felt that there is a need for multiple dwelling o
He said it is more desirable to make the changes in large
segments such as those presented in the application rather than
on a piece meal basis for each use o
-2-
The following appeared in opposition:
Mrs. L. Schaffer, 5801 SW 74 Terrace. She questioned
whether a tract of this size could be rezoned without a
referendum. She also inquired as to whether rezoning would
affect valuation of the property for tax purposes.
Mrs. R. G. Garber, Jr., 5823 SW 74 Terrace, stated that
she was strongly opposed to spot zoning and feels that a study
should be made and have one dividing line.
Mr. William Gilchrist, 7610 SW 58 Avenue, stated that he
objects to spot zoning. Apartments bring traffic and noise
problems which make living conditions unbearable.
Mrs, C. V. Morin, 7901 SW 57 Court stated that she objects
to spot zoning.
Mrs. Schecter, 6721 SW 68 Terrace, inquired as to whether
the Board was fully apprised of the ownership of the property
under consideration. She advised the Board to check the tax
stamps on Lots 3,4,6 of Messer Subdivision and they would find
it under one ownership. The three parcels have tax stamps of
$200 which means that there is an enormous holding here and is
under the trusteeship of someone named Sidney Goldin. She
stated it was ridiculous and unheard of to come up for a zone
change without a plot plan and a picture of the proposed develop-
ment. The residents in the area are complaining because they
do not wish to leave their homes. There should be full dis-
closure of ownership of the property noted in the application
and a Master Plan for the area.
S. Crane, 7532 SW 58 Avenue, appeared and stated that he owns
Lot 6, Messer Subdivision.
Mr. W. W. Charles, 1042 DuPont Building, appeared for Mr. and
Mrs. Schwartz, owners of Lot 7 Messer Subdivision. He stated
that just because there were apartments in the area that was
nO reason to place more on these lots. He stated that the re-
zoning of these four lots would blight approximately 24 fully
developed residential lots to the east. He feels that the
existing limit for apartment development is better than that
which will be accomplished by extending the line south or east
from that shown on the Master. Plan.
Mrs. Joann Sanders, 7800 SW 57 Court appeared and said she is
strongly opposed to the application.
Mr. L. Rosenkrantz, 5861 SW 76 Street, stated that the effect
of the existing apartments is to turn the area into a tenament
district. The area already has hot rods, motorcycles, etc.
Debris from the apartment area collects on residential lots--
there is heavy traffic and glaring headlights. The area is no
-3-
longer a good residential area and should not be permitted to
become worse.
Dr. Reuben Sorkin, 4721 University Drive, owner of the Palm
Plaza Apartments is opposed to additional apartments in the area.
He said there is no need for additional apartments as vscancies
run high a good part of the year. Further, the area is not
laid out for apartments--the streets are narrow, no street
lighting or sidewalks.
Zoning Director's Recommendation: The subject property is not
within the area approved for apartments in the recent study by
the Planning Board. Unless conditions have changed in the area
justifying a restudy and revision of the plan, the Board is
bound by its study and the application should be denied.
Mr. Ferguson made a motion to recommend denial to the Council.
Mr. Keys seconded the motion.
The question was called and the vote polled. All members
present voted YES.
Polled: Yes -7; No -0
***
In Executive Session:
The Rules and Regulations for the Conduct of Affairs of the Board
was discussed.
The possibility of alternate members was discussed.
The order of business received considerable discussion particularly
as to when the zoning director's recommendation should be read.
Mr. MacVicar made a motion that the Rules and Regulations pro-
posed by the committee on November 16, 1966, be adopted with the
exception that in Section 14, Order of Business, Subsection 4
that the order be changed to provide for the reading of the
Zoning Director's Recommendation immediately after the intro-
duction of applicant by the Chairman and before the applicant's
presentation. Mr. Efronson seconded the motion.
The question was called and the vote polled: Yes -5; No-2
***
Yes -Messrs. Shaw, Keys, Bowman, Efronson and MacVicar
No -Messrs. Ferguson and Paden
The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 P.M.
MINUTES OF THE REGUlAR MEETING OF THE
SOUTH MIAMI PLANNING BOARD
DECEMBER 13, 1966
Present: J. C. Shaw, Chairman
Myron Keys, Vice Chairman
Sidney Efronson
James Ferguson
D. K. MacVicar NElf Af>PROVEO
Carl Paden
Public Works Director Masson
Absent: James Bowman
***
Chairman Shaw called the meeting to order and read Notice of Public Hearing
#66-44, application of Norman L. Green, request for a variance of setback
requirements as applied to signs to permit a detached sign 8 inches from
interior property line, (required side setback -5 feet) Subject property:
Lots 3-10 and 15-24, Block 2, Westerfield Manor, Sec. 1 & 2, PB 18/47.
Location: 5704 Bird Road.
Mrs. Norman L. Green appeared for the application. She stated that
were moving their business, Tropical Tag Agency, to this location.
no way to inform people of this move but to have this sign put up.
was made to conform to South Miami's Zoning rules, therefore, they
like to use the existing sign, There is no other place for a sign
the reason for asking for the variance.
they
There is
The sign
would
which is
Mr, Keys pointed out that the application was made for all of the shopping
center, and that granting the variance would mean that it would apply to
each lot shown on the legal description. Mrs. Green explained that this was
not their intention, they are only asking for their use.
There were no objectors appearing on this application.
Zoning Director's Recommendation: The applicant's position without the sign
will be no worse than that of any of the other lessees in the shopping center,
Therefore, he cannot show unusual hardship, To approve this application
would set a precedent that would probably have to be followed throughout the
shopping center. Recommend denial.
Mr. Paden made a motion to recommend to City Council that this application
be denied, Mr. Keys seconded the motion.
The question was called and the vote polled: All members present voted YES.
Polled: Yes -6; No -0
***
Chairman Shaw read Notice of Public Hearing #66-45, application of Twin C
Corporation, request for a variance of off-street parking requirements to
permit vehicles to back into Commerce Lane. Subject property: Lots 31,32,
Block 9, Townsite of Larkins, PB 2/105 0 Location: 5868 Commerce Lane.
Mr. Bob Caldwell, 5940 SW 73 Street, appeared for the application. He
stated that this was the last piece of property in this section and that
there is an interested tenant for it. He stated that he felt there was no
other use for this property. He also stated that they would conform to the
recommendation of the Zoning Director.
Mr. R. Corbett also appeared in favor of the application.
There were no objectors appearing on this application.
Zoning Director's Recommendation: There is no practical way to develop this
lot and provide sufficient parking unless the proposed parking plan or one
similar to it is approved. Recommend approval of variance upon condition
that the applicant install an 8 foot sidewalk in conformance with existing
sidewalk on the east side of Commerce Lane.
Mr. Keys made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of the ap-
plication in accordance with the Zoning Director's Recommendation o Mr. Paden
seconded the motion.
The question was called and the vote polled o All members present voted YES.
Polled: Yes -6; No -0
The meeting adjourned at 8:30 P.M.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAll MEETING
SOUTH KIAKI PLA.ImIIfG BOAlUl
JANUARy 31, 1967
Chairman Shay called the meeting to order at 8:00 p.~ and the Pledge of Allegiance
was given.
Prnent: J. C. Shaw, Chai:rnum
Myron Keys, Viee Chairman
James Bowman
Sidney Efronson
D. K. KacViear
carl Paden
Absent:' James Ferguson
Zoning Director Eastwood and Public Works Director Kasson were also in attendance.
Hr. Kasson asked that the minutes of December 13, 1966 be amended to indicate that
the motion was made by Hr. Paden and seconded by Mr, Efronson that the minutes of
Nov_ber 29, 1966 be approved as read. Mr. Keys moved that the minutes of
December 13, 1966 be approved as corrected. Mr. Bowman seconded the motion.
Hearing: #67-1
Applicant: Virgil D. Bryant, agent for Russell N. Ross
Request: Variance of lot frontage and area rzquirements to permit thc conetructi.on
of a duplex on each of two 50 x 139.74' (6,986 sq. ft.) building sites.
(Minimum requirements 100' frontage and 10,000 ~q. ft. lot urea)
Subject Property: Lots 12,13 Block 2 Sunrise Villas, PB 12/42
Location: West side of SW 63 Court, 109' north of SW 74 Street
Approximately 7330 SW 63 Court
Zoning Director's Recommendation:
Zoning Code for the use requested.
resubdivision. Denial recommended.
The applicant has a site that conforms to the
There is no unusual hardship that justifies
Mr. Virgil Bryant, agent for Russell N. Ross, appeared for the application. He
stated that this property has been for sale since the death of Mr. Frank Ross.
The, surrounding property is zoned RU-2 and all lots are 50' in width. A three
unit apartment is located on the 100 x 139' site immediately to the south. An
old building is located on the site to the north. There are five relatively
new duplexes on 50' frontages immediately across SW 63 Court. The area is not a
good single family residential area. The proposed duplexes would be a credit to
the area.
No objectors appeared on this application.
Mr. Keys made a motion to recommend to the City Council that this application be
denied. Mr. Paden seconded the motion.
The question was called and the vote polled. All members present voted YES.
Polled: Yes -5; No -0 (Hr. Efronson was absent)
***
Hearing: #67-2
Applicant: Fred B. August
Request: Variance of rear setback requirements to permit the construction of
an addition to an existing residence 21 feet from rear (north)
property line
Subject Property: Lot 7 Block 6 Twin Lakes Manor, PB 57/82
Location: 6221 SW 62 Terrace
Zoning Director's Recommendation: The applicant has an irregular lot located on
• sharp curve. These features have resulted in the existing residence having
unusual setbacks and the applicant's situation is unique in the area. Approval
will not have a detrimental effect on the area. Approval recommended.
No objectors appeared on this application.
Mr. Stephen H. Davis, architect, appeared for the application. He stated that
the applicant was unable to appear because of pressing matters out of town. The
proposed addition may not logically be placed on the east side of the building as
it would cover the existing bathroom windows and make relocation of the septic
tank necessary. Also, the proposed addition was too near the rear line at only
one point.
Mr. Efronson entered the meeting at the end of Mr. Davis' presentation.
Mr. Paden made a motion to recommend to the City Council that this application
be approved. Mr. Bowman seconded the motion.
The question was called and the vote polled.
Polled: Yes -5; No -0 Abstained -1 (Hr. Efronson)
***
Hearing: #67-3
Applicant: Aronovitz, Aronovitz & Haverfield, agents for A, p. Properties, Inc.
Request: Change of zone classification from C-l to C-2
-2-
Subject Property: Lots 1,2 Block 2 Westerfield Manor, PB 18/47
Location: 5784-96 Bird Road
Zoning Director's Recommendation: There is no C-2 frontage on Bird Road in
South Miami, nor is there any BU-2 zoning on Bird Road in the Unincorporated
Area adjacent to South Miami property. Approval of the application would constitute
spot zoning and begin a trend for more liberal zoning along Bird Road. Denial
recommended.
Mr. Robert Haverfield, attorney, appeared for the application. He stated that
the unincorporated area opposite South Miami contained many uses which would not
be permitted under South Miami zoning. This resulted because the County's BU-lA
zoning was more liberal than South Miami's C-l zoning. As a result his client
was at a competitive disadvantage and had lost many tenants to locations in the
unincorporated area. He felt that the stores were vacant so frequently that
they constituted a blight in the area. Also, with stores already in existence
it was no longer possible to erect a special purpose store for a use permitted
in the area.
Mr. Steve Hessen, Realtor, 7390 Red Road, stated that he had managed the property
for eight years. During that time zoning had prohibited him from maintaining
an occupancy of over 50%. He requested that the zoning be changed or in the
absence of change that the C-l use classification be expanded or liberalized.
Mr. Efronson agreed and remarked that the Board must study not only C-l but all
other use classification in order to keep South Miami competitive with Dade County
and Coral Gables.
Mr. Gene Chiaravello of 7441 SW 59 Place 'voiced objection in allowing a coin
operated type operation at this location if requested.
Mr. MacVicar made a motion to recommend to the City Council that the application
be denied without prejudice, with a recommendation that a study be made to review
the zoning classifications C-l, C-2 and C-3 to determine whether the classifications
should be expanded to include more uses. Mr. Keys seconded the motion.
Polled: Yes -6; No -0
***
Hearing: lfo67-4
Applicant: Ross Industries, Inc.
Request: Change of zone classification from RU-l to RU-4
Subject Property: A portion of Tract 2-A, Eo Ro Clark Property, PB 43/20 of
the Public Records of Dade County, Florida, being particularly
described as follows: Beginning at the SW corner of said
Tract 2-A; thence run NO"37'53" E along the W line of said
Tract 2-A for a distance of 166.94 feet; thence run N 53'41'49"
E for a distance of 244.81 feet to the E lineof Tract 2-A; u thence run SO 38'41" W for a distance of 311.83 feet to the SE
corner of said Tract 2-A; thence run W along the S line os daid
Tract 2-A for a distance of 195.64 feet to the POB
-3-
Zoning Director's Recommendation: The subject peoperty lies between an existing
apartment house and business zoning along U,S,#l. The area was recommended for
RU-4 zoning in the recent study by the Zoning Board. Approval recommended.
Chairman Shaw stated that the file contained a petition of objection of 24
signatures, one letter of objection and two letters of approval. The total number
of property owners notified was 55.
Mr. Raymond A. Ross, Jr. of 6228 South Dixie Highway appeared for the application.
The subject property is an undeveloped tract of approximately one acre. The
Cambridge House is located on the property immediately to the east. Property to
the west is U,S.tFl commercial frontage. The applicant wishes to build a 35 uni.t
apartment house that will comply with all the zoning regulations. In the recent
study by the South Miami Planning Board, the site was designated for RU-4 develop-
ment. All dedications necessary for zoned rights-of-way will be made.
Mr. Lee Taylor of 5110 SW 80 Street, owner of Lot 2 Block 7 Oak Heights, stated
he was in favor of the application. Under the circumstances, he felt that the
proposed development was the most desirable the neighborhood is likely to be offered.
For some time he has been afraid of the prospect of living across from the rear
entrance of a large commercial structure. He stated that he was the nearest
property owner and the one most likely to be affected.
Mr. Joseph Gula, 6230 SW 78 StT:eet, appeared as an objector for the following
reasons: Management of the apartments is almost non-existent. On the basis of
conditions brought about by existing apartments in the area, approval of the ap-
plication will result in more nOise, drinking, reckless driving in high powered cars,
parking on neighboring lawns and general lawlessness. He felt that the bent use
of the property would be an off-street parking area for business developed on
U.S.#l frontage.
Mr. Robert W. Gardner, 7871 SW 69 Avenue, presented a letter stating that the Board
of Directors of the South Miami Home Owners Association objected to the proposal.
Mr. Efronson made a motion to recommend to the City Council that the application be
approved. Mr. Bowman seconded the motion.
The question was called and the vote polled. All members present voted YES.
Polled: Yes -6; No -0
***
Hearing: #67-5
Applicant: Ross Industries, Inc.
Request: For approval of an unclassified use (Drive-In Restaurant) under the
provisions of Section 20-23.1 of the Code of Ordinances
-4-
Subject Property: Portions of Tract 2-A, E. R. Clark Property, PB 43{20, Public
Records of Dade County, Florida, and of Lot 5, Block 5, Oak
Heights, PB 46{64, Public Records of Dade County, Florida,
being particularly described as follows: Beginning at the most
Northerly corner of said Tract 2-A; thence run S 50" 35' 53" W
along the southeasterly Right-of-Way line of State Road 5 (U.S.#l)
for a distance of 112.00 feet; thence run NO'37'53" E for a
distance of 5.22 feet; thence run S 50"35'53" W along the said
right-of-way line for a distance of 31.36 feet; thence run u S 39~24'07" E for a distance of 173.51 feet; thence run N 53 41'49"
E for a distance of 135.34 feet; thence run N 89" 53'59" E for
a distance of 28.84 feet; thence run N 44"30'52" W for a distance
of 195.86 feet to the POB.
Location: Approximately 6290 South Dixie Highway
Zoning Director's Recommendation: The proposed use will not conflict with adjacent
uses. Further, it is surrounded on three sides by property belonging to the ap-
plicant. Approval recommended subject to restrictions against outside loud speakers
and satisfactory provision being made for control of waste paper and debris
resulting from Drive-In aspects of the operation.
Chairman Shaw stated that there were two letters in favor and a petition with 30
names in objection on file.
Mr. Raymond A. Ross, Jr. appeared for the application. He stated that the
proposed property has frontage of 140 feet and a depth of 175 feet. It is now un-
developed. He proposes to build an Arby's Restaurant specializing in a high-
quality, low-cost roast beef sandwich. There are 8 such restaurants now being
built in South Florida. There will be no car hops but there will undoubtedly be
consumption of food in automobiles parked in the approximately 55 off-street parking
dpaces. There will be a space for 14 persons at tables within the restaurant. The
applicant will comply with all zoning regulations and restrictions.
Mr. Joseph Gula, 6230 SW 78 Street, appeared in opposition. He listed the eating
establishments along U.S.#l in the immediate vicinity and gave the opinion that the
existing installations are sufficient.
Mr. Robert W. Gardner, 7871 SW 69 Avenue, appeared in opposition.
the proposed instsllation added to the "honky-tonk" appearance of
along U.S,#l through South Miami.
He felt that
the development
Mr. Keys made a motion to recommend to the City Council approval of this application
subject to the restrictions stated by the Zoning Director. Mr. Efronson seconded
the motion.
The question was called and the vote polled:
***
Polled: Yes -Messrs. Shaw, Keys, Bowman, Efronson, MacVicar
No -Mr. Paden
Remarks:
The Chairman read a letter from the City of Coral Gables in which they requested
-5-
that zoning in South Miami along Red Road be mad" more restrictive so as to
conform to property located across Red Road in Coral Gables,
Mr. Masson announced a meeting had been set up with the Executive Director of
Dade County Laundry and Dry Cleaning Industry Association to discuss non~
inflammable type dry cleaning operations. The time: 3:00 PoM., Monday,
February 5. All members were requested to be present.
Mr. Keys requested that a meeting be set up at an early date for a study to
consider amendment of uses permitted in commercial zones. The meeting was set
for 8:00 P.M., Thursday, February 9.
***
The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 P.M.
MINUTES OF THE REGUlAR MEETING
SOUTH MIAMI PLANNING BOARD
FEBRUARY 14, 1967
Chairman Shaw called the meeting to order at 8:00 P.M. and the Pledge
of Allegiance was given.
Present: J. C. Shaw, Chairman
Myron Keys, Vice Chairman
James Bowman
James Ferguson
D. K. MacVicar
Carl Paden
Absent: Sidney Efronson
Public Works Director Masson was also in attendance.
***
Mr. MacVicar made a motion that the minutes of January 31, 1967 be
approved as individually read. Mr. Paden seconded the motion.
***
Hearing: #67-6
Applicant: W. F. Mendel
Request: Variance of lot frontage and area requirements to permit the
construction of a residence on a 60' x 100' (6,000 sq. ft.)
building site. (Minimum requirements 75' frontage and
10,000 sq. ft. lot area)
Subject Property: Lot 82 University Park, PB 18/46
Location: 6520 SW 58 Avenue
W side of SW 58 Avenue, 100' north of SW 66 Street
Zoning Director's Recommendation: University Park Subdivision is al-
ready 90% developed on the basis of one residence per lot. Lots on
either side of the subject lot are developed. Approval recommended.
Mr. p. H. Mendel of 210 Sarto Avenue, Coral Gables spoke for the ap-
plication. He stated the taxes on the property have been raised to a
point where the property must be used. The applicant wishes to build
a house so as to recoup taxes. The proposed residence will have a
side setback of 10 feet.
Mr. Masson noted that a similar variance as requested in this hearing
was granted on March 7, 1961 but expired.
-The Chairman noted that there was a letter of objection in the file
from Mrs. Tom Huston.
Mr. F. V. Ciochon, 6510 SW 58 Avenue, spoke in objection because he
~u1d have difficulty in getting a variance for a carport once the
lot was developed. He also fears that a duplex or triplex will be
built.
Mrs. Tom Huston of 8275 SW 64 Street, owner of Lot 95 University Park,
requested that her letter be read. The Chairman complied. She is of
the opinion that a neighborhood becomes ruined when zoning regulations
are lowered and objected to the granting of any variances.
Mr. Keys made a motion to recommend to the City Council that this ap-
plication be approved. Mr. Ferguson seconded the motion.
The question was called and the vote polled. All members present
voted YES.
Polled: Yes -6; No -0 Absent -1 -Mr. Efronson
***
Hearing: #67-7
Applicant: Robert B. Goeser
Request: Change of zone from C2 to C-3
Subject Property: Lots 15,16 Block 11 Townsite of Larkins, PB 2/105
Location: 5928 SW 68 Street
Zoning Director's Recommendation: The subject property is in the area
in which a Metropolitan Planning Department Study has been ordered. It
is suggested that no action be taken pending receipt of the Study.
Mr. Robert B. Goeser, 6101 SW 41 Street, spoke for the application. He
stated he had owned the property for over 10 years. The property was
originally zoned for a service station. The existing structure was
built at that time and so licensed. After two years the service station
was discontinued and was licensed for the last 7 years as an automotive
repair shop. A new tenant applied for a license to operate a garage in
the building and was informed by the Zoning Department that a hearing
would be necessary. Use of the building as a garage would not cause
deterioration in the neighborhood. Previous tenants in the building have
been: Precision Motors, Bob's University Service Station and South
Miami Radiator.
Mr. J. p. Canington, Jr., 6158 SW 84 Street, stated that garages had
operated on the property for years. The second_hand furniture store
next door is a C-3 use. The steam laundry close by is a C-3 use. In
fact the entire area is predominantly C-3. Even the City of South
Miami property has been so rezoned.
-2-
Mr. Keys made a motion that the application be denied without prejudice.
Mr. Paden seconded the motion.
The question waS called and the vote polled.
Polled: Yes -Messrs. Shaw, Keys, Bowman, MacVicar and Paden
No -Mr. Ferguson
Absent -Mr. Efronson
The Chairman suggested that the applicant confer with the City Attorney
and City Manager to determine what, if any, relief can be suggested.
***
Remarks:
The Chairman announced that the South Florida Chapter of the Florida
Planning and Zoning Association, Inc. would hold a luncheon meeting
on February 22, at Biscayne Cafereria. Subject: INTERAMA-REALITY.
***
Mr. Keys recommended that a survey be made of the area around the
subject property of Hearing #67-7 to determine how the uses got in.
***
Mr. Masson reported that a study waS being made on the expansion of
C-I, C-2 and C-3 uses. He requested that the entire Board participate.
***
The meeting adjourned at 9:00 P.M.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
SOUTH MIAMI PLANNING BOARD
FEBRUARY 28, 1967
Chairman Shaw called the meeting to order at 8:00 P,M, and the Pledge
of Allegiance was given,
Present: J, C, Shaw, Chairman
Myron Keys, Vice Chairman
Sidney Efronson
D, K, MacVicar
Carl Paden
Absent: James Bowman
James Ferguson
Zoning Director Eastwood and Public Works Director Masson were also in
attendance,
***
Mr. Keys made a motion that the minutes of February 14, 1967 be approved
as individually read. Mr. Paden seconded the motion.
***
Executive Session:
The Zoning Director distributed copies of the Secoud Revision of Proposed
Changes in Commercial Zones. These revisions reflected the proposals
arrived at in the informal meeting of the Zoning Board on February 23, 1967.
There was an extended discussion of additional revisions and clarifications,
Minor changes were also discussed for Residential and Apartment Zones.
Mr. Keys madt ~ motion that the revisions and clarifications of the Zoning
Code be incorporaten in and added to the Second Revision and that the
resulting revisions be advertiseu for Public Hearing. Mr. MacVicar
seconded the motion.
The question was called and the vote polled. All present voted YES.
Polled: Yes -5; No -0
***
Remarks:
The Zoning Director distributed copies of two studies prepared by the
Metropolitan Dade County Planning Department at the request of the City:
1, Special Planning and Zoning Study of area now under litigation On
the west side of SW 57 Avenue, 350' north of SW 80 Street.
2, Special Area Planning and Zoning Study for area from SW 58 Place
to SW 62 Avenue, including all lots facing On SW 62 Avenue and
from Sunset Drive to SW 68 Street, including all lots facing on
SW 68 Street,
The Zoning Director reported that the study of Sunset Drive extending
to SW 69 Avenue would be delivered prior to the next regular meeting
of the Board.
The meeting adjourned at 9:15 P,M,
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
SOUTH MIAMI pLANNING BOARD
MARCH 14, 1967
Chairman Shaw called the meeting to order at 8:00 P.M. and the Pledge
of Allegiance was given.
Present: J. C. Shaw, Chairman
Myron Keys, Vice Chairman
Sidney Efronson
James Ferguson
D. K. MacVicar
Carl Paden
Absent: James Bawman
Zoning Director Eastwood and Public Works Director Masson were also in
attendance.
Mr. Paden made a motion that the minutes of February 28, 1967 be approved
as individually read. Mr. Keys seconded the motion.
***
Hearing: #67-8
Applicant: Florida Power and Light Company
Request: Application for special use pursuant to Section 20-45(3)(a)
of the Code of Ordinances of the City of South Miami to permit
the construction of an electric distribution substation on the
W 200' of the Stk of Section 36-54-40 lying S of canal, C-2,
Snapper Creek Canal, and prescribing regulations and conditions
thereto.
Subject Property: W 200' of SE~ of Section 36-54-40 lying S of canal,
C-2, Snapper Creek Canal.
Location: Approxiffiate1y 6181 North Kendall Drive
Zoning Director's Recommendation: No recommendation made.
Mr. L. H. Adams, representative for Florida Power and Light Company
appeared for the application. He stated that the Florida Power and
Light Company was requesting withdrawal of the application for the request
on this property. He further stated that the need for this substation
is still necessary but that Florida Power and Light Company had decided
to withdraw the application for other reasons.
Mr. Efronson entered at this time.
Mr. Paden made a motion to recommend to the City Council that the
request of Florida Power and Light Company on this application be
accepted and they be allowed to withdraw without prejudice.
The question was called and the vote polled.
Polled: Yes -5; No -0; Abstained -1 (Mr. Efronson)
***
Executive Session
1. Area from SW 58 Place to SW 62 Avenue and including all lots facing
on SW 62 Avenue; between Sunset Drive and SW 68 Street, including
all lots facing on SW 68 Street.
After some discussion of the study, Mr. Shaw suggested that any
action on this study be postponed pending the joint meeting with the
City Council on Thursday, March 16. The members sgreed.
2. The Victoria Fascell peoperty located on the W side of SW 57 Avenue,
350' north of SW 80 Street.
The Board members accepted the study and felt that it is a re-
enforcement of previous recommendation.
Remarks
Metro Zoning Board of Appeals Hearing Notices.
1. Rezone SW corner of SW 80 Street and 69 Avenue from RU-2 to BU-2.
Mr. Robert W. Gardner, 7871 SW 69 Avenue, appeared requesting the
Planning Advisory Board to send a letter to the Metro Zoning Board
of Appeals to deny the rezoning of the SW corner of SW 80 Street
and 69 Avenue from RU-2 to BU-2. He stated it is rumored that there
are plans to build a 7-11 type store on this property. He feels
this is not the proper use of this area which is across the street
from South Miami residential property.
Mr. Shaw informed Mr. Gardner that the Planning Board was an advisory
group to the City Council and therefor could not make recommendations
to anyone but the City Council. He stated that it was the consensus
of the members of the Planning Board that granting rezoning of this
property would be against the best interest of the City of South Miami.
Mr. Paden made a motion that the Planning Advisory Board recommend
to the City Council that a recommendation be made to the Metro Zoning
Board to deny this application. Mr. Efronson seconded the motion.
The question was called and the vote polled. All members present
voted YES.
Polled: Yes -6; No -0
-2-
2. Use Variance. 4250 SH 58 Avenue from RU-l to RU-2,
***
Mr, MacVicar made a motion to recommend to the City Council that
a recommendation be made to the Metro Zoning Board of Appeals to
deny this applicac~on. Mr, Keys seconded the motion.
The question was called and the vote polled. All members present
voted YES.
Polled: Yes -6; No -0
The meeting ,-as adjourned at 0'01) P.M.
MINUTES OF THE REGUlAR MEETING
SOUTH MIAMI PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 28, 1967
Chairman Shaw called the meeting to order at 8:00 P.M. and the Pledge
of Allegiance was given.
Present: J. C. Shaw, Chairman
Myron Keys, Vice Chairman
James Bowman
James Ferguson
D. K. MacVicar
Carl Paden
Absent: Sidney Efronson
Zoning Director Eastwood and Public Works Director Masson were also
in attendance.
Mr. Paden made a motion that the minutes of March 14, 1967 be approved
as individually read, Mr. Keys seconded the motion.
***
Hearing: #67-9
Applicant: Irving Robbins
Request: Approval of an unclassified use (ceramics instruction and
supplies) under the provisions of Section 20-23.1 of the
Code of Ordinances.
Subject Property: Lot 12 Block 1 Solovoff, PB 7/11
Location: 5944-46 SW 73 Street
Zoning Director's Recommendation: A distinction should be made
between instruction and manufacture. The instruction use is a proper
one in a C-l Zone Classification so long as production is incidental
to instruction. Approval recommended subject to conditions limiting
use to instruction.
Mr. Robert Caldwell, 5940 SW 73 Street, appeared for the application.
He'stated that Mr. Robbins wishes to operate a retail ceramics studio
and hobby shop on this property. This is a studio where he would
teach the art of ceramics, His students would be primarily women;
therefore, the studio should be in an area that is well lighted and
convenient to come to at night •. Mr. Robbins intends to have two
kilns installed, These are electrical kilns and operate on 110 volts.
There is C-2 zoning across the street and On both sides of the prop-
erty.
()
)
)
Mr. Irving Robbins, 1330 SW 97 Avenue, appeared for this application.
He stated that his primary business is instruction and selling supplies.
It is not manufacturing, The work is all hand work except for the
kilns, There is no cost for instruc,tion, only for the supplies, The
production of ceramics is something that can be done either at home
or in the studio, There will be no noise or odor and no machines ex-
cept for the two kilns, He will not carry the kilns in stock for sale
but will order them upon request,
Mr, Ferguson made a motion to recommend to the City Council approval
of the application as ,submitted, Mr, Keys seconded the motion,
The question was called and the vote polled, All members present
voted YES,
Polled: Yes -6; No -0
***
Hearing #67 -10
Applicant: Royal H. Woodworth
Request: Approval-of an unclassified use (rental of single axle
luggage or U-Hau1 type trailers on service station lot)
under the 'provisions of Section 20-23.1 of the Code of
Ordinances ,
Subject Property: Lot 15 less nw'ly 16' Block 1, PB 24/20 and
Lot 15A and 25 and N~ Lot 26 Block 2, PB 53/41
Larkin Pines
Location: 6180 South Dixie Highway
Zoning Director's Recommendation: Approval recommended under the
same conditions as required in the unincorporated area for luggage
trailer use at gasoline service stations, (This condition has been
made a part of the proposed amended C-2 classification). Total of
five trai1ers 'permitted on the premises, additional of which may be
stored on the premises, provided they are suitably screened on all
sides by a CBS wall, a landscape screen or other suitable method.
The use to be approved only if it does not interfere with traffic
conditions or entrance and exit driveways to the service station.
Mr, Woodworth of 6180 South Dixie Highway and Mr, J. Cons1anzer of
U-Hau1 ' Trailer Company appeared for the application, Mr. Cons1anzer
stated that the U-Hau1 operation was essential to Mr, Woodworth's
business. When he purchased the business the U-Hau1 was in operation
and he counted on the use to increase his business, He further stated
that the use ties in with the service station. It is a convenience to
the neighborhood, The number of trailers at any given time varies,
-2-
Mr. Cons1anzer stated that the applicant could not conform to the
zoning code in reference to the number of trailers on the premises.
Also, that he knows of no stations that are able to conform to this
code.
Mr. Keys made a motion to recommend to the City Council that this
application be denied. Mr. Ferguson seconded the motion.
The question WSS called and the vote polled:
Polled: Yes -Messrs. Ferguson, Keys and Paden
No -Messrs. Bowman, MacVicar and Shaw
Motion failed because of a tie.
Mr. Keys made a motion to recommend to the City Council that this
application be denied without prejudice. Mr. Paden seconded the motion.
The question was called and the vote polled.
***
Polled: Yes -Messrs. Bowman, Keys, Paden and Shaw
No -Messrs. Ferguson and MacVicar
Executive Session:
Discussion of Special Area Planning and Zoning Studies:
Vicinity bounded by SW 70 Street, SW 74 Street, SW 62 Avenue and
city limits on the west.
Chairman Shaw expressed the opinion that the area west of Sunset and
SW 62 Avenue to SW 63 Court should be softened to allow RU-5 develop-
ment.
The Zoning Director suggested that it would be premature to prepare
a plan for the area west of SW 62 Avenue at this time. The location
of the South Dixie Expressway is still in question but this alignment
should be agreed upon within the next six to eight months. Further,
there is no pressing need for such action at this time because ap-
proximately 50% of all business zoning in the core area of South
Miami is undeveloped at this time; and, further that 50% of the busi-
ness frontage below U.S.1 and SW 62 Avenue is undeveloped. Upon the
alignment of South Dixie Expressway being determined, a new study
should be immediately requested from the Metropolitan Dade County Plan-
ning Department.
The Planning Board felt that the recommendations made on Hearings
-3-
l.
#66-42 and 67-1 should not be changed. The Special Area Planning
Study prepared by Metropolitan Dade County Planning Department had
not made recommendations thst would justify changes in the recom-
mendations,
***
The meeting adjourned at 10:15 P,M.
4-12-67/mc
NO PLANNING BOARD MEETING APRIL 11, 1967
NO HEARINGS
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
SOUTH MIAMI PlANNING BOARD
APRIL 25, 1967
Chairman Shaw called the meeting to order at 8:00 P.M. and the Pledge of
Allegiance was given.
Present: J. C. Shaw, Chairman
Myron Keys, Vice Chairman
James Bowman
James Ferguson
D. K. MacVicar
Carl Paden
Absent: Joyce Schechter
Zoning Director Eastwood and Public Works Director Masson were also in
attendance o
*
Mr. Ferguson made a motion that the minutes of March 28, 1967 be approved
as individually read. Mr. Paden seconded the motion.
*
Hearing #67-11
Applicant: City of South Miami
Request: Consideration of recommending to the City Council to amend Section
20-10, Official Rights-of-Way Widths, to establish minimum right-of way width
of 80 feet for North Kendall Drive and 100 feet for Miller Drive.
Mr. Paden made a motion to recommend to the City Council approval of the ap-
plication. Mr. Keys seconded the motion.
The question was called and the vote polled. All members present voted YES.
Polled: Yes -6; No -0
*
Hearing #67-12
Applicant: City of South Miami
Request: Consideration of recommending to the City Council to amend Section
20-19, Residential Zones, to provide for additional permitted uses subject
to Public Hearing.
Mr. Masson stated that the committee that made a tour of inspection on
Monday recommended that the word "only" be inserted after the word zones in
the first line of the propo~ed resolution.
Mr. Paden made a motion to insert the word "only" in the first line after
the word zones. Mr. Keys seconded the motion.
The question was called and the vote polled. All members present voted YES.
Polled: Yes -6; No -0
Mr. Keys made a motion to recommend to the City Council that the application
be approved as amended. Mr. Bowman seconded the motion.
The question was called and the vote polled.
Polled: Yes -5
No -1
Messrs. Shaw, Keys, Bowman MacVicar and Paden
Mr. Ferguson
*
Hearing 1167-13
Applicant: City of South Miami
Request: Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, a solid,
pierced masonry or precast concrete louvered wall shall be constructed on
the property lines between land zoned or used for apartment and lands zoned
RU-1 (single family residential use) or RU-2 (duplex, two family residential
use).
Mr. Keys made a motion to insert the words "five feet" be added so as to read
"a 5' high, solid, pierced masonry or precast concrete louvered wall shall
be constructed on the property lines between land zoned or used for apartments
and lands zoned RU-1 (single family residential use) or RU-2 (duplex, two
family residential use)". Mr. MacVicar seconded the motion.
The question was called and the vote polled. All members present voted YES.
Polled: Yes -6; No -0
Mr. MacVicar made a motion to recommend to the City Council that the application
be approved as amended. Mr. Keys seconded the motion.
The question was called and the vote polled. All members present voted YES.
Polled: Yes -6; No -0
*
Hearing 1167-14
Applicant: City of South Miami
-2 -
Request: Consideration or recommending to the City Council to amend
Section 20-22, Commercial Zones, to provide for additional uses in Commercial
Zones and providing conditions under which some may operate,
The following amendments were recommended:
Mr. Paden made a motion that the word "the" be stricken from the second
sentence of the second paragraph of Section 20-22(1) of the proposed resolution
and that the phrases "the rear of" and "the rear and side" be stricken from
the first sentence of the third paragraph of Section 20-22(1). Mr, MacVicar
seconded the motion,
The question was called and the vote polled. All members present voted YES.
Polled: Yes -6; No -0
Mr. Paden made a motion that the phrase "Music and Radio Stores" be amended
to "Music Stores" in Section 20-22(2). Mr, Bowman seconded the motion,
The question was called and the vote polled. All members present voted YES,
Polled: Yes -6; No -0
Mr, Ferguson made a motion that "Automobile Agencies for New Cars" and
"Automobile Storage, Sale or Cars for Hire" be amended to permit storage wi~h
in a walled area as provided in "Boat Sales and Storage" and that the sentence
dealing with "Dry Cleaning Plants" have the following words added "of the
Prosperity or Dietrick type or equal" in Section 20-22(3).
The question was called and the vote polled, All members present voted YES,
Polled: Yes -6; No -0
Mr. MacVicar made a motion that Section 20-22(3) be amended to read "Replace-
ment of mufflers and tail pipes, water hose, fan belts, brake fluid, light
bulbs, floor mats, seat covers, windshield wipers, and replacement of grease
retainers and wheel bearings," Mr. Keys seconded the motion.
The question was called and the vote polled. All members present voted YES.
Polled: Yes -6; No -0
Mr. Keys made a motion that the first sentence dealing with "Automobiles" in
Section 20-22(4) be amended as follows:
"Automobiles, open lot sales and rentals of cars, boats, trailers and trucks
up to one and one-half tons, subject to the following conditions:" Mr.
Ferguson seconded the motion.
The question was called and the vote polled. All members present voted YES,
Polled: Yes -6; No -0
-3 -
Mr, MacVicar made a motion that the proposed resolution, as amended, be
recommended for approval, Mr, Keys seconded the motion,
The question was called and the vote polled, All members voted YES,
Polled: Yes -6; No -0
*
Hearing: #67-15
Applicant: City of South Miami
Request: Consideration of recommending to the City Council to amend Section
20-29, Swimming Pools, by deletion of the Section.
Mr. MacVicar made a motion to recommend to the City Council that Section 20-29,
Swimming Pools, be deleted, Mr, Keys seconded the motion.
The question was called and the vote polled. All members present voted YES.
Polled: Yes -6; No -0
*
Hearing:#67-l6
Applicant: Irene Arabatgis
Request: Change of zone classification from RU-l to RU-3 and the following
variances:
I, Variance of floor area requirements to permit the use of two efficiency
dwelling units, 180 sq. ft. and 287 sq. ft, (minimum requirements-SOO sq. ft,)
2. Variance of side street and interior side property line setbacks as applied
to apartment buildings to permit side street setback of 20 ft, (minimum
requirements -25 ft,) and to interior property line setback of 10 ft,
(minimum requirements -15 ft.)
3, Variance of off-street parking requirements to permit three unit apart-
ment building with two off-street parking spaces, (Requirement -3 spaces)
and to permit the side street setback area to be used for parking without a
wall being constructed between the parking area and the street,
Subject Property: 6250 SW 78 Street
Location: Lot 1 Block 7 Oak Heights, PB 46/64
-4 -
Zoning Director's Recommendation: The proposed reclassification does not
match the Plan recently approved in the study by our Board, Further, in
the form in which it is submitted it constitutes spot zoning in that it is
surrounded on three sides by a single family residential zone,
The variance will result from illegal conversion of a single family residence
to three family use, In all cases permits were taken out for additions to
a single family residence and conversions were subsequently made to multiple
family use, This does not give a proper basis for unusual hardship, Denial
recommended,
attorney
Mr, Lawrence C, Rice/of Mr, Robert Rutledge's office, appeared for the ap-
plicant, He stated that the house and one efficiency was built in 1952 or
1953. Mr, Gus Scarmalis, the owner, added the other efficiency in 1953, The
structure has existed in its present form for 13 to 15 years, When Mrs.
Arabatgis purchased the house six months ago, she purchased it for income
purposes only, She does not live in the house, If the applicant is unable
to use the efficiencies to supplement her income she will be unable to meet
the mortgage payment, Mrs, Arabatgis does not speak English and therefore
relied on her realtor, a personal friend, to make the transactions,
Mr. Masson stated that the permit for the construction of the residence was
issued in 1952. In 1953 a second permit was issued to enclose a portion of
the carport for an additional bedroom with bath. In 1958 a permit was
issued to create a bedroom and bath from the remaining portion of the car-
port and a part of the existing utility room, with no outside doors to be
installed,
Mr, Gula, 6230 SW 78 Street,appeared and read a letter of objection into
the record, He also stated that he had been living on the adjoining property
since 1953 and did not realize that more than single family use was being
made of the property.
Mr, Ferguson made a motion to recommend to the City Council denial of the
application, Mr, Keys seconded the motion.
The question was called and the vote polled. All members present voted YES,
Polled: Yes -6; No -0
*
Remarks:
Mr, Masson mentioned the fact that the Planning Advisory Board meeting of
May 30 falls on Memorial Day which is a holiday for city employees. The
Board decided to hold the meeting on the Monday before the 30th.
Chairman Shaw mentioned several meetings which are being held.
Mr, Bramson and Mrs, Schechter will attend the meeting of the
and Zoning Association, Mrs. Schechter will give a report at
*
The meeting adjourned at 9:40 P.M.
S. Fla. Planning
the next meeting.
MINUTES OF TIlE REGULAR MEETING
SOUTH MIAMI pLANNING BOARD
MAY 9, 1967
Chairman Shaw called the meeting to order at 8:00 P,M. and the Pledge
of Allegiance was given.
Present: J. C. Shaw, Chairman
Myron Keys, Vice Chairman
D, K. MacVicar
Carl Paden
Joyce Schechter
Absent: James Bowman
James Ferguson
Zoning Director Eastwood and Public Works Director Masson were also in
attendance.
*
Mr, Paden made a motion that the minutes of April 25, 1967 be approved
as individually read. Mr. Keys seconded the motion.
*
Hearing #67-17, Robert J, Shelley
Request: Change of zone classification from RU-l to C-l
Subject Property: Begin at a point of 329.54' Wand 200' N of SE cor
of E~ of SEk of SEk of SW~ of Sec. 25-54-40; then run N 208.42'; then
E 165'; then S 208.33'; then W to POB
Location: 150' N of Sunset Drive and 130' W of SW 62 Avenue
Zoning Director's Recommendation: The requested zoning is in confor-
mance with the overall plan approved by this Board, However, the area
on the west side of 62 Avenue, between 70 Street and Sunset Drive, is
a key property in the future development of the City, The property is
not platted and eventually interest of the many owners will be conflicting.
It is essential that Some pattern of development be agreed upon at this
time. The recording of a plat will go a long way toward protecting the
interest of the City and will also protect the property owners from in-
adequate access, parking and drainage, Approval recommended subject to
platting,
Mr. J. N, Cully, 7390 SW 128 Street, appeared for the applicant. He
stated that the property has been owned by the applicant since 1911 and
is at the point where it is ready for business development.
Mr. Thomas, one of the owners of Burger House, appeared for the appli-
cation. He stated that they need more customer parking in the rear of
their restaurant o Burger House would agree to a public alley to serve
the area to the rear and would like to develop the property without
platting o
No one appeared in objection to the application o Chairman Shaw noted
that there was one letter of objection and one letter of approval on
file o
Mr. Keys made a motion to recommend to City Council that this appli-
cation be denied without prejudice. Mr. Paden seconded the motion.
Mr. Keys and Mr. Paden expressed the opinion that although they were
not opposed to changing the zoning to C-l use they were against doing
so without platting o
The question was called and the vote polled:
Polled: Yes -4.
No -1.
Absent -2.
*
Messrs. Shaw, Keys, Paden and Mrs. Schechter
Mr. MacVicar
Messrs. Bowman and Ferguson
Hearing #67-18. H. George Fink
Request: Variance of lot frontage requirements to permit construction
of a residence on a building site 72' x 142'. (Minimum requirements -
lot frontage 75')
Subject Property: Lot 10 Block 1 Pinecrest Villas, PB 47/51
Location: W/S sw 60 Avenue, 72' N of SW 78 Street
Zoning Director's Recommendation: The applicant wishes to develop in
accordance with existing development in the area. All lots in the
block are of the same size and few remain vacant. Approval recommended.
Mro Keys, who is a neighbor of Mro Fink, stated that Mr. Fink was unable
to attend the meeting. However, since he lives in the same neighbor-
hood, he has knowledge of lot size and development. All lots in the area
are of the same size as the lot in the application. The area is almost
completely developed on a 72' lot basis.
No one appeared in objection to the application.
Mro MacVicar made a motion to recommend to City Council that the appli-
cation be approved o Mr. Keys seconded the motion o
The question was called and the vote polled. All members present voted
YES o
Polled: Yes -5; No -0
Page 2
Executive Session:
Discussion of sign for Junior Shoe Craft:
Mr. Albert of Junior Shoe Craft was present at the meeting.
The Board instructed the City Manager to bring the action of the Chamber
of Commerce before them at the next regular meeting, after which the
Board would make a determination as to what amendments in the sign regu-
lations should be advertised for Public Hearing.
In the interim the Zoning Director was directed to issue a temporary
permit for a sign in accordance with the plan presented to the Board,
with an agreement that the sign will be immediately removed and made to
conform to the sign regulations should the proposed amendment not be en-
acted or be enacted in such form so as not to permit the sign issued
under the temporary permit.
Remarks:
Mr. MacVicar felt that the Board should do what it could to assist the
applicant in Hearing #67-17 to develop his property.
Mrs. Schechter read a letter of acceptance of appointment to the Board,
after which she gave a report of the South Florida Planning and Zoning
Association meeting which she attended.
Mr. Robert Gardner, 7871 SW 69 Avenue, appeared to make objection to
portions of the proposed ordinance revising the RU-l zone. He was in-
formed that the Board had already made its recommendations on the pro-
posal and the proposed ordinance had the first and second reading by
the Council. The third reading by the Council is set for May 16. It
was suggested that he appear before Council at that time.
Mr. Sam Goldstein, 6815 SW 69 Terrace, asked if it would be easier to
get rezoning under the revision. The Board had no opinion as to whether
it would be easier or more difficult.
*
The meeting adjourned at 9:45 P.M.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
SOUTH MIAMI PLANNING BOARD
JUNE 6, 1967
Chairman Shaw called the meeting to order at 8:00 P,M, and the Pledge of
Allegiance was given,
Present: J, C, Shaw, Chairman
Myron Keys, Vice Chairman
James Bowman
James Ferguson
D. Ko MacVicar
Joyce Schechter
Absent: Carl Paden
Public Works Director Masson was also in attendance,
*
Mr. Keys made a motion that the minutes of May 9, 1967 be approved as individually
read, Mr, Bowman seconded the motion,
*
Hearing #67-19. Harvey Herman
Request: Change of zone classification from C-2 to C-3 and variance of rear
setback requirements to permit the construction of a building 10 feet from rear
(north) property line, (Minimum requirement -15 feet)
Subject Property: Lots 10,11,12 Block 8 Townsite of Larkins, PB 2/105
Location: NE corner of SW 68 Street and 58 Place
Zoning Director's Recommendation: The established pattern of the area has pro-
vided for more liberal uses than C-2 zone classification. The change of zoning
will not alter the pattern but will comply with existing development. Approval
recommended subject to the dedication of an additional five feet of right-of-way
on both SW 68 Street and SW 58 Place.
Operation of off-street parking requirements result in over 60% of the useable
lot area being devoted to something other than building, The 15' rear setback
requirement would create a hardship on the reasonable development of the property.
A 10' rear setback is recommended,
Mr. Harvey Herman, 5465 SW 85 Street, appeared for the application,
He stated that he also owns the building across the street. The automobile
repair shop in the existing building needs more space, He further stated that
there are already three or four C-3 businesses operating on the street, The
area is not a retail area and the rezoning will not hurt the area, He has
dedicated 5' of R/W across the street and will make dedications as recommended
by the Zoning Director, The 10' rear setback area will not be used as an alley.
This is an auto repair shop and there would be no constant traffic.
Mrs. Schechter observed that to build 10 feet from the existing playground
to the north, would create a blind corner and a traffic hazard to the small
children in the area.
Mr, Ferguson indicated that although he was not against the rezoning, he was
against granting the setback variance, He said the property could be developed
without the variance and he felt there was no hardship, Mr. MacVicar concurred.
Mr, Keys made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of the application
on the basis of the Zoning Director's recoDIDlendations, Mr, Bowman seconded the
motion,
The question was called and the vote polled.
Polled: Yes -3
No -3
Absent -1
Messrs. Bowman, Keys and Shaw
Messrs, Ferguson, MacVicar and Mrs. Schechter
Mr, Paden
Motion failed due to a tie.
Mr. Ferguson made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of the re-
zoning subject to the conditions recommended by the Zoning Director and denial of
the variance, Mr, Keys seconded the motion,
The question was called and the vote polled. All members present voted YES.
*
Polled: Yes -6
No -0
Absent -1 Mr, Paden
Hearing #67-20. W, L. Sauls
Request:
addition
(Minimum
Variance of side setback requirements to permit the construction of an
to an existing residence 4.2 feet from side (north) property line,
requirement -7.5 feet)
Subject Property: Lot 17 Revised Poinciana Park, PB 41/41
Location: 7220 SW 61 Court
Zoning Director's Recommendation: Subject residence was constructed 4.2 feet
from the north property line prior to the present regulations, The proposed
addition is small and would be in conformity with the existing setback. Approval
recommended,
Mr. Sauls, 7220 SW 61 Court, appeared for the application,
-2-
Mr. MacVicar made a motion to recommend to City Council that this application
be approved. Mrs. Schechter seconded the motion.
The question was called and the vote polled. All members present voted YES.
*
Polled: Yes -6
No -0
Absent -1 Mr. Paden
Executive Session:
Hearing No. 67-6-26. Metropolitan Dade County
Mr. Masson commented that this was the application to rezone the property north
of Miller Drive for Doctors Hospital. This notice is a courtesy notice sent
to South Miami by Metropolitan Dade County.
The Board took no action on this item.
Remarks:
Mrso Schechter inquired as to whether it was possible to receive memoS about
the changes in applications from the time they come before the Planning Board
and the time they go to City Council.
Mr. Bowman asked that a meeting be set up between the Planning Board and Mr.
Eastwood to discuss the possibility of a study being made of the negro area.
Mro Masson was instructed to set up this meeting on June 8 and call the members
of the Board as to time •
Mr. Masson gave copies of the proposed Dade County Landscaping Ordinance to the
members. Mr. Shaw stated that the Florida Landscape Architects were studying
this and similar ordinances with the hope of arriving at a model ordinance.
However, he stated that the study would not be completed for several months.
He asked each member to study the proposed County ordinance.
*
The meeting adjoUTIled at 9:00 P.M.
MINUTES OF TIlE REGULAR MEETING
SOUTH MIAMI PLANNING BOARD
JULY 6, 1967
Vice Chairman Keys called the meeting to order at 8:00 P.M. and the Pledge of
Allegiance was given.
Present: Myron Keys, Vice Chairman
James Ferguson
Absent:
James Bowman
Carl Paden
Joyce Schechter
J. C. Shaw, Chairman
D. K. MacVicar
Zoning Director Eastwood and Public Works Director Masson were also in attendance.
Mr. Ferguson made a motion that the minutes of June 6, 1967 be approved as
individually read. Mr. Bowman seconded the motion.
***
Hearing: #67-21 Henry Leitson
Request: Variance to permit the erection of a wood sign on the roof of the building.
(Combustible materials not permitted)
Variance to permit the erection of a sign above the eave line of the
building.
Subject Property: Lots 1 to 3 and Lot 4 less SW 15 ft. of Lot 11, Block 2,
Solovoff, PB 7/11
Location: 5950 South Dixie Highway
Zoning Director's Recommendation: All signs were erected without permits. Any
hardship is self inflicted. Denial recommended.
Mr. Henry Leitson, 1524 Zoreta Avenue, Coral Gables, appeared for the application.
He stated that the original restaurant was built of wood. He would like to attach
a wood sign to the shingled sloping wall of Henry's Chalet. He further stated
that this sign would conform to the decor of his building and would be flat to
the build ing.
Mr. Paden raised a question as to whether the sign was a roof sign.
Mr. Ferguson made a motion to recommend to the City Council that the application
be denied. Mr. Paden seconded the motion.
Page 2
The question was called and the vote polled o
Polled:
***
Yes -3
No -2
Messrs. Keys, Ferguson and Paden
Mrso Schechter and Mr. Bowman
Hearing: #67-22 Arby's Restaurant
Request: Variance of setback requirements to permit the erection of a 275
square foot sign 7.5 feet from front (northwesterly) property line.
(20 feet required)
Variance of height requirement to permit the erection of a sign 35
feet in overall height. (21 feet permitted)
Subject Property: Part of Tract 2, Eo Ro Clark Property, PB 43/20 and part of
Lot 5, Block 5, Oak Heights, PB 46/64
Location: 6290 South Dixie Highway
Zoning Director's Recommendation: The proposed sign would require variances
beyond any previously granted in the area o No hardship has been shown. Denial
recommended~
Mr. Ed Dickman, 1270 NE 134 Street, North Miami, appeared for the application.
He stated that he has the franchise for Arby's Restaurant o The franchise is
based on selling under Arby's hat which is a nationally known slogan. His
justification for the sign was that (1) His place of business cannot be seen by
a person looking southward from the easterly right-of-way line of US #1, (2) A
sign meeting code requirements cannot be seen above the Park Lane Cafeteria and
(3) There are other larger signs in the area that have been granted as a result
of variances. He stated that Arby's has 3 standard signs and the proposed sign
is the largest. Mr. Dickman estimated he would lose 30% of his potential business
should the variance be denied o
Mr. Paden noted that a question had been raised in the original application as to
whether additional variances would be necessary and the applicant had stated that
the proposed installation would comply with Code requirements.
Mro Ray Ross, Jr. appeared on behalf of the applicant. He stated that he was not
aware of the necessity for a sign variance at the time the original application
was made o He was of the opinion that the sign would not have a detrimental effect.
The applicant "must be given the tools with which to compete or he is dead".
Mr. E. Warner, 3800 NW 62 Street, Miami, Royal Castle representative, appeared
in opposition. He stated that the granting of this variance would make it neces-
sary for all competition to come in for a comparable sign.
pa~e 3
Mr. Paden made a motion that the application be denied. Mrs. Schechter seconded
the motion. The question was called and the vote polled. All members present
voted YES.
Polled: Yes -5 No -0
Mr. Ferguson requested the record show that he felt the applicant was entitled
to some relief short of that requested.
***
Hearing: #67-23 Herbert O. Hall
Request: Change of zone classification from RULA to RU-4
Subject Property: N 490.92' of W~ of W~ of SW\ of SW\ less the S 264' thereof,
Section 25-54-40
Location: Approximately 6800 SW 67 Avenue
Zoning Director's Recommendation: The request does not conform to the recent
overall plan approved by the Board. It would constitute spot zoning. Denial
recommended 0
Mr. Herbert Hall, 12225 SW 79 Avenue, appeared for the application. He stated
he wished this change in zone to build a two-story, 26-unit apartment house.
Mrs. Parrish, the owner of the property, wishes to move from the area. At one
time there was a plant nursery on the property.
Mr. Ronald Singerman, 6821 SW 66 Avenue, appeared in objection to the application.
He questioned the right of Mr. Hall to ask for this change of zone as he does not
own the property. He presented a signed petition from residents of Merion Park
Subdivision.
Mr. Walter Lippman, 6780 SW 69 Terrace, stated that approval of the request
would downgrade the area and would set a trend for other apartments in the area.
Mr. Leonard J. Kalish, 6700 SW 69 Terrace, as a resident of the area for nine
years, felt approval of the application would destroy the single family character
of the area.
Mr. R. J. Crittenden, 7001 SW 67 Avenue, stated he opposed the request.
Mrs. Schechter requested a ruling from the Chairman as to whether as an affected
property owner she had the right to vote. The Chairman ruled in the affirmative.
Mr. Ferguson made a motion that the application be recommended for denial. Mr.
Bowman seconded the motion.
Page 4
The question was called and the vote polled. All members present voted YES.
Polled: Yes -5, No -0
***
Hearing: #67-24 David A. Brooks
Request: Exception to permit a convalescent home in a C-l -Commercial Zone.
Subject Property: Lots 1 thru 9 and Lots 18 thru 20, Block 1, Larkin Center
Location: SE corner of SW 62 Avenue and 70 Street
Zoning Director's Recommendation: The subject area is zoned C-l. The proposed
use is reasonable so long as reasonable setbacks, landscaping and parking require-
ments are installed. There should be a limitation to mentally competent patients.
An addition 10 feet is needed for SW 62 Avenue. Approval recommended.
Mr. Herman Kaskel, 17240 NE 12 Avenue, North Miami Beach, appeared for the appli-
cation. He stated that the area is presently zoned C-l. He intends to demolish
the several old buildings on the property and to build/ftigh quality 120 bed
hospital. He submitted a plot plan and rendering of the proposed structure. All
requirements of the City of South Miami, the State Health Department and the
Federal Housing Administration will be met.
The purpose of the building will be to take care of patients from hospitals who
need intensive care. Many doctors have expressed a need for such a facility in
the area. One of the conditions of the FHA commitment is that the building not
be used for mental incompetents. He stated that the building would be well
landscaped and that he would present a dedication of 10 feet on SW 62 Avenue.
Mr. Frank VanMarlen, Jr., broker for the property, stated that he had inspected
several similar installations in the area and none presented a parking or traffic
problem.
Mr. p. D. Loyless, 7109 SW 61 Court, stated that he lived directly across from
the proposed development. He felt it would be an asset to the community.
Mr. Samuel Goldstein, 6815 SW 69 Terrace, objected to the application on the
grounds that it would cause traffic congestion.
Miss Pat Hilliard, 7038 SW 61 Court, stated that she rented one of the buildings
on the property. Demolition of the existing buildings would make it difficult
for her to find accommodations she could afford.
Mrs. B. D. Willis, 6144 SW 69 Street, stated she would like to see the property
remain in its present condition.
Mr. Ferguson made a motion that the application be approved. Mr. Paden seconded
the motion.
Page 5
The question was called and the vote polled.
Polled:
***
Yes -3
No -2
Messrs. Ferguson, Keys and Paden
Mr. Bowman and Mrs. Schechter
Hearing: #67-25 City of South Miami
Request: Change of zone classification from RU-lA to RU-4
Subject Property: E% of N~ of SE% SE% NE% less the W 160' thereof, Section
36-54-40
Location: Approximately 7810 SW 57 Avenue
Zoning Director's Recommendation: Recommend that property be rezoned to con-
form to Metropolitan Dade County Planning Study.
The Chairman noted that the file contained a petition of objection signed by
39 persons.
The Zoning Director stated that he had been directed by the City Council to
advertise the subject property for rezoning in conformance to the recent study
prepared by Metropolitan Dade County Planning Department. He stated that the pro-
posal provided for an 135' deep buffer of RU-1 on the west portion of the property
with the remainder proposed for RU-4 to match the Ru-4 zoning in the unincorporated
area on the east side of Red Road.
Mr. John R. Gustafson, 5740 SW 77 Terrace, stated that his residence adjoined
the subject property. He moved to the area because of its fine residential
qualities. He has found it necessary to appear in opposition to zone changes
three or four times. He sees no reason to make the change or to build sewers
or sidewalks that the residents do not want. He feels that money should be spent
for additional parks like Fasce11 Park.
Mrs. Joyce D. Morin, 7901 SW 57 Court, stated that it was unfair to rezone property
without submitting a plan of development.
Mr. Edward J. Stys, 5712 SW 77 Terrace, stated that he represented the entire
neighborhood. That he would like to see the character of the neighborhood maintained.
Mr. Frank Guilford, attorney for the owners of the subject property, stated that
no action should be taken as a new study is being made at this time. He stated
that the City was making this step to improve their position in pending litigation.
Mr. Ferguson stated that he felt this was a good step for the City to make as the
result was reasonable and desirable. He then made a motion for approval. The
motion died for lack of a second.
Page 6
Mr. Paden made a motion to recommend to City Council that this application be denied o
Mrs. Schechter seconded the motion"
The question was called and the vote polled.
***
Yes -4
No -1
Messrs. Keys, Bowman, Paden and Mrs. Schechter
Mro Ferguson
Hearing #67-120 City of South Miami (Referred to the Planning Board by the City
for further study)
Mro Edward Bramson, Vice Mayor, appeared with a copy of the City Council Minutes
of June 6, 1967 0 He pointed out that the subject matter had not been referred
back to the Zoning Board and the appearance of the matter on the agenda was in
error"
Mr. Bramson requested that the Metropolitan Dade County Landscaping Ordinance
be studied for action by the Zoning Board. He also requested that recommendations
of the Chamber of Commerce on signs be acted upono Mro Keys stated that the Board
had not received the copy of the Chamber reco"~endations to date.
Mro Keys inquired as to the method of handling abandoned septic tanks upon tie-in
to sewers o Mr. Masson informed him that this was covered by the South Florida
Building Code o
***
The meeting adjourned at 10:30 PoMo
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
SOUTH MIAMI PlANNING BOARD
AUGUST 8, 1967
Chairman Shaw called the meeting to order at 8:00 P.M. and the Pledge
of Allegiance was given.
Present: J, C. Shaw, Chairman
Myron Keys, Vice Chairman
Carl Paden
Absent: James Bowman
James Ferguson
D. K, MacVicar
Joyce Schechter
Zoning Director Eastwood and Public Works Director Masson were also in
attendance.
Mr. Paden made a motion that the minutes of July 6, 1967 be approved as
individually read. Mr. Keys seconded the motion.
Chairman Shaw announced that a quorum of the Board was not present.
However, the hearings would proceed in order to give the City Council
information as to the recommendations of the members present.
Hearing: 167-26 Klara M. Hauri
Request: Change of zone classification from C-2 to C-3
Subject Property: Lots 5,6 Block 4 Oak Heights, PB 46/64
Location: Approximately 6370 South Dixie Hy.
Zoning Director's Recommendation: There are presently three veterinary
clinics in the city. Two are located in C-2 zones and one in a C-l
zone. There is no inherent conflict between this use and other C-2 uses
so long as the following safeguards are imposed:
Air-Conditioned, Soundproof Building
No Outside Storage or Maintenance of Animals
No Boarding of Animals
It is recommended that Animal Clinics be classified as a C-2 use sub-
ject to the stated conditions.
Page 2--
Mr. Jack Shiffman, realtor, 9810 South Dixie Highway, appeared
representing the applicant. He stated that the applicant has two lots
on the east side of U,S.ll which are 100' x 175'. The property is
far enough away from residential area that a clinic would give no
problem to anyone. A business on this property would give the City
more revenue. The business would conform to the Zoning Director's
Recommendations.
The members present recommended that the C-2 classification be amended
to include animal clinics subject to the conditions in the Zoning
Director's Recommendation.
They were opposed to spot zoning to C-3.
***
Hearing: #67-28 YMCA
Request: Application for Special Use pursuant to Section 20-45(3)
of the Code of Ordinances of the City of South Miami to permit the
use of a 10 x 50' Trailer as living accommodations for caretaker on
the ~ of the SW\ of the NE\ of the NE\ of Section 24-54-40 (5 Acres)
and for prescribing regulations and conditions thereto.
Subject Property: 4300 SW 58 Avenue
Zoning Director's Recommendation: The applicant has a 10 acre site.
The presence of a watchman is desirable. Approval recommended on a
year to year basis.
Mr. John C. Barber appeared for the application. He stated that the
property needed supervision during its closing hours. The proposed
trailer was to be used by a caretaker. The applicant hopes to build a
permanent structure eventually. The area is well hidden from all
neighboring property.
The Zoning Director stated there is a need for a caretaker at this
property, due to the fact that the Police Department has been unable
to patrol this area sufficiently to prevent vandalism.
A letter of approval from Metropolitan Dade County was read into the
record.
All members present approved of the application.
Mr, Paden stated that he-was in favor of the application on a year
to year basis but was generally not in favor ob mobile homes.
Page 3--
Hearing: #67-29 City of South Miami & Charles J. Stoker
Request: Change of zone classification from RU-l to RU-IB
Subject Property: Stoker Park Subdivision, PB 80/41
Location: Along SW 63 Avenue between SW 48 and 49 Streets
Zoning Director's Recommendation: The lot area of proposed lots
was noted at the time the plat was submitted. Approval was justified
because of existing lots of the same size as those proposed to the
east and west in the unincorporated area. However, no action was
taken to approve the lots as building sites at the time of plat
approval. The subject lots are the same size or larger than all other
lots in the immediate area. Approval recommended.
Mrs. Charles Stoker appeared for the applicant. She stated that all
lots would be developed as platted and would have a minimum frontage
of 75 feet and minimum lot area of 7,500 sq. ft.
The Zoning Director stated that
prior to approval of the plat.
that oversight.
a variance should have been required
The subject application was to correct
The entire Board was for approval but would prefer to see relief given
on a variance basis.
Executive Session: Discussion of Sign Ordinance Proposal by the Chamber
of Commerce.
It was the opinion of those present that a committee should study the
sign ordinance but that all pending cases should be acted upon on the
basis of existing regulations and conditions. In particular, the pend-
ing case by Arby's Restaurant should be approved on the basis of the
amended request.
The meeting adjourned at 9:30 P.M.
MINUTES OF THE REGUlAR MEETING
SOUTH MIAMI PlANNING BOARD
AUGUST 22, 1967
Chairman Shaw called the meeting to order at 8:00 P.M.
Present: Jo C. Shaw, Chairman
Myron Keys, Vice Chairman
James Bowman
James Ferguson
D. Ko MacVicar
Carl Paden
Joyce Schechter
Zoning Director Eastwood and Public Works Director Masson were also
in attendance.
*
Hearing #67-27. City of South Miami
Request: Amending Code of Ordinances of the City of South Miami,
Florida, by adding thereto a section to be designated Section 20-20.1.5
thereby providing for an additional zoning use classification to be
designated RU-5A
There was general discussion on the proposed amendment. Mrs. Schechter
stated that it had been her understanding that the proposed RU-5A zone
was not to provide for any apartment use.
The following amendments to the proposal were discussed and voted upon:
Amendment of paragraph (C)(2) <a) & (b) to read:
(a) Minimum front setback shall be 25 feet
(b) Minimum side street setback shall be 15 feet
Motion by Mr. Paden seconded by Mr. Keys
Yes -7 No -0
Amendment of paragraph (C)(4) to read:
Type of building permitted. The building to be erected shall be
residential in exterior appearance and of masonry construction
without store fronts or display windows
Motion by Mr. Ferguson seconded by Mr. Keys
Yes -7 No -0
Amendment of paragraph (E)(l) to read:
Parking. One car space (10' x 20') must be provided for each
two hundred square feet of floor space in the building and an
additional space shall be required for each accompanying residen-
tial use in connection with an office and in addition thereto
the parking area shall include adequate interior driveway and
ingress and egress driveways to connect the parking space to the
public street or alley, The parking area and driveways must be
paved and drained. No parking shall be permitted in front of
the front building line.
Motion by Mr. Ferguson seconded by Mr. Keys
Yes -6 No -1 Mrs. Schechter
Amendment of paragraph (E)(3) to read:
Signs. Roof, projecting, neon, rotating and revolving signs
shall be strictly prohibited. One sign will be permitted, said
sign shall not exceed twelve square feet in area and shall be
mounted on building wall or on a cantilever parallel with the
wall or may be detached and located not less than 10 feet from
the zoned street line
Motion by Mr. Paden seconded by Mr. Keys
Yes -6 No -0 Abstained -1 Mr. MacVicar
Amendment of paragraph (E)(4) to read:
Mixed Uses. It shall be permissible for the occupant of an
office to have an accompanying residential use in connection
therewith.
Motion by Mr. Ferguson seconded by Mr. Keys
Yes -6 No -1 Mrs. Schechter
Paragraph (E) to have subparagraph (7) added to read as follows:
Sidewalks, Curbs and Gutters. No certificate of occupancy shall
be issued until such time as sidewalks, curbs and gutters are
installed in accordance with the city requirements
Motion by Mr. Ferguson seconded by Mr. Keys
Yes -7 No -0
Mr. Ferguson made a motion to recommend to City Council that the proposed
ordinance as amended be approved. Mr. Paden seconded the motion.
Yes 5 No -0 Abstained -2 Mr. MacVicar and Mrs. Schechter
-2-
Hearing #67-30 R. I. Horne, Herschel V. Green, Agent
Request: Change of zone classification from RU-1 to C-1 for Lot 25
American Townsite Co. Subdivision No. 1 of Larkin and vari-
ance of lot coverage requirements to permit the construction
of a 43-unit apartment with lot coverage of 38% (30%) maxi-
mum permitted)
Subject Property: Lots 25,26,27,28,29,30,31 American Townsites Co.
Subdivision No. 1 of Larkin, PB 3/134
Location: South side of SW 74 Street between SW 59 Court and SW 59 Place
Zoning Director's Recommendation: On the
mitted, all zoning regulations can be met
(Lot 25 is to be used for parking only).
basis of the plan sub-
if Lot 25 is rezoned to RU-4
Rezoning to RU-4 recommended.
The proposed building will be located in an area presently C-1 which
would permit business development of considerably more density than is
here requested. Variance recommended.
Chairman Shaw noted that a letter of approval from Mr. Wallace Ruff,
7321 SW 59 Court, was in the file.
Mr. H. V. Green, President of Green Construction appeared for the ap-
plication. He stated that all but one lot was presently zoned C-1 and
he felt that all the property should be zoned the same. The proposed
construction is to be a joint venture between Mr. Green and Mr. Horne.
The variance has been made necessary by their attempting to provide high
quality apartments with large floor area.
Mr. Margolin, 7530 SW 59 Place, objected on the basis that additional
development will aggravate existing bad parking conditions. People
attending the local movie theater block his driveway at present.
Mr. Keys made a motion to recommend to the City Council that the re-
zoning to C-1 be denied, and recommended that rezoning to RU-4 be ap-
proved and the variance request of lot coverage requirements of 38%
also be approved. Mr. MacVicar seconded the motion.
The question was called and the vote polled, All members present
voted YES.
Polled: Yes -7 No -0
***
-3-
Hearing #67-31 Alice L. Shipp, Barry Barson, Agent
Request: To permit the construction of a duplex residence in RU-4B
zone with the following variances:
1. Variance of setback requirements to permit front setback
of 15 feet (25 ft. minimum requirement); rear setback of 21
feet (25 ft. minimum requirement); side (north) setback of
5 feet (7.5 ft. minimum requirement); and side street (south)
setback of 5 feet (15 ft. minimum requirement)
2. Variance of lot size requirements to permit a 50' x 96'
duplex site with a lot area of 4,800 sq. ft. (minimum require-
ments 60 ft. frontage, 6,000 sq. ft.)
3. Variance of maximum lot coverage requirement to permit
lot coverage of 31.3% (maximum 30%)
Subject Property: Lot 7 Block 1 Amended Plat of Hamlet, PB 4/48
Location: NW corner of SW 59 Place and SW 63 Street
Zoning Director's Recommendation: The proposed duplexes conform to
setbacks in the area. In addition, the lots of this application have
the additional hardship of being located on substandard rights-of-way
with resulting excessive street setbacks. The proposed use conforms
to prevailing use in the neighborhood. Variance recommended.
Mr. Barson, 6989 SW 125 Street appeared for the application. He stated
that the proposed construction would replace substandard construction
in the area.
Mr. MacVicar made a motion to recommend to City Council that the appli-
cation be approved. Mrs. Schechter seconded the motion.
The question was called and the vote polled. All members present voted
YES.
Polled: Yes -7 No -0
***
Hearing #67-32 Alice L. Shipp, Barry Barson, Agent
Request: To permit the construction of a duplex residence in RU-4B zone
with the following variances:
1. Variance of setback requirements to permit front setback
of 15 feet (25 ft. minimum requirement); rear setback of 22
feet (25 ft. minimum requirement); side (north) setback of
5 feet (7.5 ft. minimum requirement); and side street (south)
setback of 5 feet (15 ft. minimum requirement)
-4-
2. Variance of lot size requirements to permit a 50' x 97'
duplex site with a lot area of 4,850 sq. ft. (minimum require-
ments 60 ft. frontage, 6,000 sq. ft.)
3. Variance of maximum lot coverage requirement to permit
lot coverage of 31% (maximum 30%)
Subject Property: Lot 6 Block 3 Amended Plat of Hamlet, PB 4/48
Location: NE corner of SW 59 Place and SW 63 Street
Zoning Director's Recommendation: The proposed duplexes conform to
setbacks in the area. In addition, the lots of this application have
the additional hardship of being located on substandard rights-of-way
with resulting excessive street setbacks. The proposed use conforms
to prevailing use in the neighborhood. Variance recommended.
Mr. Barson, 6989 SW 125 Street, appeared for the application. He stated
that the proposed construction would replace substandard construction
in the area.
Mr. Bowman made a motion to recommend to City Council that the application
be approved. Mrs. Schechter seconded the motion.
The question was called and the vote polled. All members present voted
YES.
Polled: Yes -7 No -0
***
The meeting adjourned at 10:00 PoMo
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
SOUTH MIAMI PIANNING BOARD
SEPTEMBER 12, 1967
Chairman Shaw called the meeting to order at 8:00 P.M, and the Pledge of
Allegiance was given.
Present: J, C, Shaw, Chairman
Myron Keys, Vice Chairman
James Bowman
James Ferguson
D. K. MacVicar
Carl Paden
Joyce Schechter
Zoning Director Eastwood and Public Works Director Masson were also in
attendance.
Mr. Ferguson made a motion that the minutes of August 8 and 22, 1967 be ap-
proved as individually read. Mr. Keys seconded the motion.
***
Hearing: #67-33 City of South Miami
Request: Amend Section 20-22(3) of the Code of Ordinances of the City of
SOl'th Miami, Florida so as to provide for animal clinics to be a permitted
use in a C-2 zoning use district.
Mr. Paden inquired as to how existing veterinary clinics were permitted to
locate in the C-l and C-2 zones. Also, would the uses now permitted in C-2
zones be required to comply to the proposed restrictions. The Zoning Di-
rector stated that the three existing veterinary clinics had been approved
as variances or special use permits. Since conditions had not been impose',l
on them at the time of approval, they have a status of nonconforming use and
would not have to conform to new regulations. Mr. Paden inquired as to
whether it would be permissible to walk animals outside of buildings. Mrs.
Schechter said it had been her experience that existing veterinary clinics
have a walk area at the approaches to the clinic entrance.
Mr. Keys made a motion to recommend to City Council that the application be
approved. Mr. Paden seconded the motion.
The question was called and the vote polled. All members present voted YES.
Polled: Yes -7 No -0
***
Hearing: #67-34 City of South Miami
Request: Amend Section 20-7 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of South
Miami, Florida so as to allow the City Council to permit use of house
trailers as living quarters in areas other than Trailer Parks.
Mr. Paden inquired as to how this particular amendment came to be advertised.
The Zoning Director explained that the City Attorney had been directed to
draft alternative amendments. They were presented to the City Council, who
had selected the one referred to and directed that it be advertised for
Public Hearing.
Mrs. Schechter requested that the following question and answer be introduced
into the record:
Question:
this type
trailers?
Is it advisable from the zoning standpoint that we should have
of trailer ordinsnce which could possibly open our community to
Answer: Mro Eastwood answered that while it was possible for such an amend-
ment to be used to permit our area to be opened for trailers such u possibility
had to be considered as unlikely in light of the difficulty encountered by
the present applicant who is a nonprofit organization requesting a permit on
a temporary basis o
Mr. MscVicar made a motion that the ordinance be amended to
mum period of one year renewable by a new Public Hearing."
seconded the motion.
The question was called and the vote polled.
Polled: Yes -6 No -I Mrso Schechter
***
read "for a 'maxi-
Mro Ferguson
Mrs. Schechter made an inquiry as to combined residential and offiee use in
RU-5 and RU-5A zones.
Mr. Pao"11 inquired as to an application for apartment zoning to come before
the Board at the next regular meeting.
Mr. Keys made a request that a possible violation at SW 59 Avenue and 78 Street
be checked into.
Mrs. Schechter informed the Board that the attorney for the Victoria Fascell
estate had requested a meeting with surrounding property owners.
The Zoning Director was instructed to inquire of the City Council as to the
status of the proposed amendment applying to signs overhanging the right-of-
way.
***
The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 PoMo
MINUTES OF TIlE REGULAR MEETING
SOUTH MIAMI PUNNING BOARD
SEPTEMBER 26, 1967
Chairman Shaw called the meeting to order at 8:00 P.M, and the Pledge of AL-
legiance was given.
Present: J. C. Shaw, Chairman
Myron Keys, Vice Chaiman
James Bowman
James Ferguson
D. K. MacVicar
Carl Paden
Joyce Schechter
Zoning Director Eastwood and Public Works Director Masson were also in attendance.
Mr. Keys made a motion that the minutes of September 12, 1967 be approved as
individually read. Mr. Paden seconded the motion.
***
Hearing: #67-35 Mary E. Ivanik. Murray Kretchmer, Agent
Request: Change of zone classification from RU-1 to Ru-4
Subject Property: Lots 25,26,27 Block 7 Westerfield Manor, Sec. 1 & 2, PB 18/47
Location: SW corner of SW42 Terrace and Red Road
Zoning Director's Recommendation: This application does not conform to the over-
all plan recently approved by the Board. Denial Recommended.
Chairman Shaw remarked that there was a petition of objection on file signed by
102 persons.
Coral Gables and Metropolitan Dade County Planning Boards stated that they
strenuously oppose the proposed change of zone classification.
The following letters of objection were filed:
Mrs. Geneva p. Armstrong, President of P,T.A.
Mrs. Emma C. Seve1ius
5757 SW 45 Street
5800 SW 42 Terrace
Mr. Eugene Davi.1son, realtor, 2994 NW 7 Street, appeared for the applicant.
He stated that their application had involved a great deal of work and planning.
The area of Red Road to the north is commercial property, with stores, bars, etc.
and in his opinion the current trend is strongly in favor of making this area
commercial as Red Road will be widened to four lanes prior to the installation
of the South Dixie Expressway. A study had been made of this area and found
41 lots fronting on Red Road vacant, or 437. of such land. There are 55 lots
on which residences sre built which either have garages on Red Road or have
the corner lot on Red Road. Only 19 of existing residences front on Red Road.
The majority of vacant lots are on the west side of the street. Those lots
on the east side of Red Road permit bedrooms on the east side of the reSidences,
away from Red Road. Mr. Davidson stated that he felt that the lots that lay
north, between this property and Red Road Shopping Center,shou1d be developed.
The applicants will develop the property in accordance with the requested
zoning regulations and are prepared to execute a covenant to develop the
property substantially in accordance with the plan displayed.
The Development Plan is as follows:
1. The majority of apartments will face the school, and the property will
be completely walled in.
2. Setback of 66 feet from north line.
3. The value of these apartments to be equal to or greater than the surrounding
single family residences.
4. The high quality of the apartments will draw a better grade clientele.
5. There will be 65 units, with 78 parking spaces.
6. There are only six units in South Miami.
The following objectors appeared:
Mrs. Armstrong, President of the David Fairchild School PTA, stated that
she was concerned with the safety of the school children.
Mr. Jim Billings, 4401 Alhambra Circle, Coral Gables, stated he represented
many objectors. They find no fault with the building but objected to the
multiple-family use of the property.
In reviewing the plan Mr. Billings stated that the plot plan provided for
72 parking spaces instead of the 78 spaces indicated by Mr. Davidson. Mr.
Billings is also concerned with the fact that traffic servicing this area will
be heavy at the same time that the school children will be going and coming from
school.
Th~ area is a firmly established single family area and should stay that way.
He noted that the subject property was purchased subsequent to purchase of ad-
joining land by the Board of Public Instruction.
Mr. Neil H. Barrons, 5730 SW 48 Street, appeared in objection. He stated
that he felt the area was a livable area and the proposed zoning would affect
all the houses in the area. No one has found a way to mix residential areas
with any other type of zoning and make everyone happy. He feels that if Bird
Road is widened, no provision has been made for parking which is already a
hazard.
Mr. C. R. Berry, 1535 Cantor Avenue, Coral Gables, stated that he has been
-2-
in the area 29 years, has watched the neighborhood grow and hopes to continue
to do so. He is concerned for the safety of the school children.
Mr. Charles H. Corbett, 5731 SW 42 Terrace, stated he is just across the
street from the lots in question and cannot see how the plan will do anything
for the area. This is the third time he has been before the Board relarding
this property. If this is granted, this will open the door for others to ask
for rezoning.
Mr. William L. Gray, 1521 Garcia Avenue, Coral Gables stated he is 300 feet
east of the property in question. He purchased his property in 1959 relying
on single family zoning. He objects to any change of zone classification for
this area.
In rebuttal, Mr. Davidson stated he sat on the Miami Planning Board for four
years and it was his experience that it was easier to be against something than
for it. He felt that the majority of the objectors were misinformed. There
will be no street parking allowed. He feels that good zoning practice is to
use multiple-family zoning to buffer single family areas. There will be no
drop in property value, rather an increase. There must be planning for this
area or it would be necessary for the courts to make the decisions.
Chairman Shaw called for an audience count in reference to how many were in
objection and how many in favor.
Objectors 38 In Favor 10
Mr. Psden stated that Coral Gables and the Metro Planning Boards expressed
objection and since only one-quarter of the application is in South Miami, it
would be improper for South Miami to approve this application at this time;
therefore, he feels the application should be deferred until after the Metro
hearing. Mr. Keys disagreed. He felt that what the other Boards do have no
bearing on South Miami's hesrings. Mrs. Schechter agreed. Mrs. Schechter
stated that she felt this type of development would appeal to university students
who would rent rooms in groups.
Mr. Ferguson made a motion to recommend to City Council that the application be
denied. Mrs. Schechter seconded the motion.
The question was called and the vote polled.
Polled: Yes -6 Messrs. Shaw, Keys, Bowman, Ferguson, MacVicar and
Mrs. Schechter
No -1 Mr. Paden
Mr. Paden requested that the record show that he does not approve of the ap-
plication but feels that the timing is wrong and more information is needed
before final vote can be taken.
-3-
Executive Session:
Discussion of Structures Overhanging R/W.
The recommendation previously submitted to the Council was discussed. It was
the consensus of the Board that the proposal did not solve the problem of
signs projecting into rights-of-way. The matter was deferred to the previous
Committee: Mr. Ferguson, Hr. Paden and Mr. MacVicar for further study
with directions to submit their recommendations to the Board.
Remarks:
Mr. Shaw requested an opinion from the Board as to what remarks would be
included in the minutes. After discussion, the Zoning Director was instructed
to include all remarks where the member requested that his statement be made
a matter of record, in addition, he will include all direct statements and
opinions made under "remarks". The Zoning Director requested that where a
member wished verbatim recording that he submit a written copy of his remarks
at the meeting.
Mr. Keys requested that 'the corner of SW 59 Avenue and 70 Street be inspected
for a possible fence violation.
The Zoning Director reminded the Board that its overall plan had not been
reviewed for over a year. He inquired as to whether they wish to review the
plan. The consensus of the Board was that the plan should be reviewed. The
Chairman will appoint a committee at the next meeting.
Mr. Bowman stated that he waS in favor of changes being made that would en-
courage single family residential use and resident home ownership by persons in
the area being considered for urban renewal. Vice Mayor Bramson requested
that study of a plan be undertaken as expeditiously as possible.
A portion of the area of the west side between SW 76 Street and Davis Road is
presently in litigation. A new classification, RU-5A, has been adopted and
may provide a desirable buffer in this area.
Secondly, more restricted zoning should be placed on the area being considered
for urban renewal in order to preserve the integrity of the area pending
renewal.
***
The meeting adjourned at 10:00 P.M.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
SOUTH MIAMI pLANNING BOARD
OCTOBER 10, 1967
Chairman Shaw called the meeting to order at 8:00 P.M. and the Pledge of
Allegiance was given.
Present: J. C. Shaw, Chairman
Absent:
. Myron Keys, Vice Chairman
James Ferguson
D. K. MacVicar
Carl Paden
Joyce Schechter
James Bowman
Public Works Director Masson was also in attendance.
Mr. Paden made a motion that the minutes of September 26, 1967 be approved
as individually read. Mrs. Schechter seconded the motion.
Hearing: #67-36 Joseph M. Bencomo. Jack Fleischer, Agent
Request: Variance of lot size requirements to permit
a residence on a 51' x 100' building site.
75 ft. frontage; 10,000 sq. ft. lot area)
the construction of
CMinimum requirements -
Subject Property: Lot 5 Block 3 Bird Road Estates, PB 19/76
Location: Approximately 6338 SW 41 Street
Zoning Director's Recommendation: The majority of Bird Road Estates Sub-
division is developed on building sites with less than minimum lot size
requirements. Lots on either side of the subject property are developed.
Approval Recommended.
Mr. Shaw indicated that there were two letters in favor of the application.
Mr. Jack Fleischer, 30 SW 65 Avenue, appeared for the application. He
stated that he is the purchaser of the lot and that this is the only vacant
property on this street. He will require no other variances and he will meet
all zoning requirements.
Mr. R. F. Jumper, 6346 SW 41 Street, appeared in opposition to the application.
He stated he lives next door to the lot in question. Mr. Jumper wished to
know if there was adequate sewer and what the total value of the property
would be after completion. He was informed that the applicant will have to
comply with Building Code requirements. It was established that this property
would be the same value as the existing property in the area.
Mr. Keys made a motion to recommend to the City Council that the application
be approved. Mr. Paden seconded the motion.
The question was called and the vote polled. All members present voted YES.
Polled: Yes -6; No -0
***
Hearing #67-37 Thomas T. Tatham.
Re"quest: Variance of lot size requirements to permit the construction of a
residence on a 50' x 100' building site. CMinimum requirements -
75 foot frontage; 10,000 sq. ft. lot area)
Subject Property: Lots 1,2 Block 7 West Larkin Park, PB 12/49
Location: Approximately 7840 Ludlam Road
Zoning Director's Recommendation: Many of the building sites in West Larkin
Park Subdivision are less than the minimum lot size requirements. Lots on
either side of the subject property are developed. Approval recommended.
there was
Mr. Shaw indicated that/one letter of approval and one of objection on file.
Mr. Axpiazu appeared for the applicant. He stated Mr. Tatham has had the
property since 1944 and now has an opportunity to sell the property as a
residential site •
The follOWing appeared in objection of the application;
1. Mr. G. Waldon, who owns the property to the north stated he objected
for the following reasons:
1. Other residences on Ludlum Road in this area have frontages of more than
50 feet.
2. If Ludlum Road is widened there will be quite a few 50 foot lots created.
The owners could ask the same relief here requested.
3. Coral Gables Planning Board recently denied a similar request.
Mr. H. Wittner, 6744 SW 78 Terrace, stated he has three lots facing 78 Terrace.
He was of the opinion that development of 50' lots did not provide for suf-
ficient light, air and septic tank area.
Mr. MacVicar made a motion to recommend to City Council that the application
be approved. Mr. Keys seconded the motion.
The question was called and the vote polled.
Polled: Yes -5; No 1 Mrs. Schechter.
-2-
Mrs, Schechter stated that she felt this could set a precedent for the area,
***
Hearing: #67-38, John L. Bridges. John S. Bristol, Agent.
Request: Change of zone classification from RU-LA to RU-5A.
Subject Property: N. 264' of S. 422' of W~, SW\ SW\ SW\ less the E. 25'
Section 25-54-40
Location: Approximately 7105 Ludlam Road
Zoning Director's Recommendation: The request does not conform to the Over-
all Plan approved by the Board. It would constitute spot zoning. Denial
recommended.
Mr. Shaw indicated that there were two letters of objection and a petition
of eleven names objecting to the application.
Mr. A. W. Crowder, 7550 Red Road, Vice President of Bristol Associates, ap-
peared for the applicant. He stated that the applicant intends to build an
office building that will blend with the surrounding area. The applicant
has been in this area since 1961.
The subject property was chosen because it was in an area suitable for
RU-5A zoning. No variances would be requested and the building would be
well landscaped.
Mr, Bill Nunberg, 7049 SW 66 Avenue, stated his home faces the proposed park-
ing lot, Prior to purchase of his home he had inquired as to what zoning
was planned for the area. He was assured that it would remain single family
residential. Houses in the area are in the $35,000 price range and a 74
car parking lot would cause deterioration of values and residential character-
istics.
Mr, Ron Singerman, 6821 SW 66 Avenue, stated that approval of the request
would constitute spot zoning. The area is entirely residential except for
schools and there is no wsy to blend this use into the existing residential
community. He inquired as to whether a unanimous objection of surrounding
property owners would require a 4/5 vote for approval by the City Council.
He was informed that it would.
Mrs. Jean Snyder, 6890 SW 69 Terrace, stated that she would like to have read
into the record a letter of objection from the principal of the Ludlum
Elementary School.
Dr, Hubert Chauser, 6760 SW 69 Terrace, stated he had 700 square feet office
in Coral Gables. On the basis of his experience, the parking here proposed
-3-
•
was insufficient and as a result there would be parking on streets in front
of homes, and the parking and traffic would conflict with the school
children in the area.
Mr. Robert Borema, 6761 SW 68 Terrace, stated that the proposed use could
not be made to blend in with the surrounding area, proposed parking was in-
adequate and the proposal is spot zoning.
Mr. Leonard J. Kalish, 6700 SW 69 Terrace, felt a three-story building would
damage the area and would make the beginning of a trend to destroy the area.
Mrs. Schechter made a motion to recommend to City Council that the appli-
cation be denied. Mr. Paden seconded the motion.
The question was called and the vote polled. All members present voted YES.
Polled: Yes -6i No -O.
**
Executive Session:
Discussion of the Overall Plan. A committee was appointed composed of
Mr. Keys, Chairman, Messrs. Bowman, Paden and MacVicar.
The consensus of the Board was that the plan should be studied by areas and
action taken on each area as it is studied.
*
Structures Overhanging R/W. Mr. Paden stated that the committee is working
on this and should be ready for a report by the next meeting.
*
Mrs. Schechter reported of the bad condition at the intersection of SW 68
Terrace and 67 Avenue. She indicated that a tree blocked the view when
making turns out of SW 68 Terrace.
Mr, Paden inquired if the City would provide Code books to Board members.
Mr. Masson indicated that the books were being printed and would be available
in the near future,
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
SOUTH MIAMI PLANNING BOARD
OCTOBER 31, 1967
Chairman Shaw called the meeting to order at 8:00 P.M. and the Pledge
of Allegiance was given.
Present: J. C. Shaw, Chairman
Myron Keys, Vice Chairman
James Bowman
James Ferguson
D. K. MacVicar
Carl Paden
Joyce Schechter
Public Works Director Masson was also in attendance.
Mr. Paden made a motion that the minutes of October 10, 1967 be approved
as individually read. Mr. Keys seconded the motion.
***
Hearing: #67-39 Joseph Canington, Milton Prosan, Agent
Request: Change of zone classification from C-1 to C-3
Subject Property: Lots 20,23,24,25 Block 12 Townsite of Larkins, PB 2/105
Location: Approximately 6850 SW 59 Place
Zoning Director's Recommendation: A buffer must be provided to prevent
further liberalization of the area west of SW 59 Place. It is recom-
mended that Lots 23,24,25 Block 12 be rezoned to C-2 to provide the buffer
and that the applicant's request for C-3 zoning be denied.
It is further recommended that the Board consider in their Overall Plan
study this C-2 buffer be extended from SW 70 Street north to SW 68 Street
on the west side of 59 Place.
Mr. Milton Prosan, 6114 South Dixie Hwy. appeared for the applicant. He
stated that rezoning to C-2 would not be to their liking. He feels that
the City of South Miami would be passing up a lot of business by zoning
to C-2. He stated that he wishes to use the property for new automobile
parts and equipment. He further stated that the car dealerships were
moving to the Kendall area, and although he did not wish to leave the
South Miami area, if this property was rezoned to C-2 instead of C-3
he would have no choice but to move. Mrs. Schechter questioned if there
would be any difference if he asked for a variance instead of rezoning.
The following appeared in objection:
Mrs. Betty Arrington, 14401 SW 82 Avenue. She stated that she owns an
apartment building behind the South Miami Federal Savings and Loan
building. She stated that if the G-1 zoning in this area were changed
to G-3 the people in the area would feel as though they had lost every_
thing, due to the type of liberal business that could come into the area.
Mrs. Arrington also spoke for Mrs. Fox who is against the rezoning.
Mr. Ron Holcomb, 5952 SW 70 Street, who owns neighboring property jOintly
with Mr. Braden would like to see the property stay G-1. If the property
is rezoned to G-2 or C-3, it will open the way for more people to come
into the area with G-3 business.
Mrs. Sanchez, a resident of South Miami, spoke in favor of the application.
She stated that she felt it would be to South Miami's advantage to bring
the business into South Miami instead of driving it further south to the
Kendall area.
Mr. Keys made a motion to recommend to City Council denial of the appli-
cation. Mr. Paden seconded the motion.
After discussion Mr. Keys made s motion that his original motion be amended
to read "without prejudice". Mr. Paden seconded the motion.
The question was called and the vote polled on the amendment to the motion.
Polled: Yes -5.
No -2.
Messrs. Shaw, Keys MacVicsr, Paden and Mrs. Schechter
Messrs. Bowman and Ferguson
The question was called and the vote polled on the motion as amended.
Polled: Yes -6. Messrs. Shaw, Keys, Bowman, MacVicar, Paden and
Mrs. Schechter
No -1. Mr. Ferguson
Mr. Ferguson requested that the record show he is opposed to rezoning
Lot 20 to C-3 but he does not object to Lots 23,24,25 having the same
zoning as the NE corner of the same intersection.
***
Hearing: #67-40 David R. Balogh, George A. Barkins, Agent
Request: Variance of off-street parking requirements for proposed
building site
Subject Property: W. 40 feet of Lot 3 W. A. Larkins, PB 3/198
Location: Approximately 5720 Sunset Drive
Zoning Director's Recommendation: AllOWing the use of this building site
without requiring off-street parking would add to the parking congestion
already in the area. Denial recommended.
-2-
Mr. M. S. Marlin, attorney, stated that he believed a similar application
was previously submitted and recommended by the Zoning Director at that
time. The request is in conformity with many developments in the area
that have provided no off-street parking. In fact, no additional off-
street parking is needed because the parking lots provided by other
developments are never full and customers for his building can use the
Holsum lot or the lot to the south of this development (Panky lot).
Mr. Marlin displayed a 12 foot easement to the rear of the proposed build-
ing from SW 73 Street. The purpose of this easement was to provide access
for sanitation, delivery and fire service.
Mr. Robert Rutledge, 7321 SW 57 Court, appeared representing Mr. Val
Steiglitz and himself. He stated that a definite parking problem exists
in the area. An application for a variance must show unusual hardship to
be legally justified, The hardship here was self imposed. The owner of
this property sold the east 17 feet of this property to Mr. Segal for
$11,000 fo be used in the construction of the Cross Roads Building. The
owner of this property knew other owners were being required to provide
off-street parking. The Holsum Building, the Steiglitz building and the
applicant's building were all erected prior to the purchase of this
property by the applicant, The applicant is not entitled to a privilege
that other property owners in the area do not have. Mr. Balogh has al-
ready gotten the Judi Lesli building without providing off-street parking.
Mr. Burt Albert, a tenant in the Cross Road building, stated that parking
in the area is a problem. While he welcomes new business in the area, he
would object to the parking situation becoming more critical.
Mrs, Schechter inquired as to uses permitted in the C-l classification.
Mr, Keys made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of the ap-
plication. Mr. Bowman seconded the motion,
The question was called and the vote polled.
***
Polled: Yes -6 Messrs. Shaw, Keys, Bowman, Ferguson, MacVicar
and Paden
No -1 Mrs. Schechter
Executive Session:
1. Signs on Structures Overhanging R/W. Mr. Paden, Chairman
Mr. Paden, Chairman of the committee, read the committee's report
into the record. After discussion the report was accepted and it
was requested that the members study the report and that it be
put on the next agenda.
2. Study of Overall Plan. Mr. Keys, Chairman
Mr. Keys, Chairman of the committee, read the committee's report
-3-
into the record. After discussion the report was accepted and it
was requested that the members study the report and that it be
put on the next agenda.
3. Consideration of Study for Town House Ordinance.
The chairman stated that the Mayor had requested that the Board look
into the Town House Ordinance. It was requested that Mr. Masson
send for these ordinances from some of the cities.
Remarks:
Mr. Shaw announced that the agenda for the FPZA Conference was available
and urged the members to attend.
***
The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 P.M.
.'
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
SOUTH MIAMI PLANNING BOARD
NOVEMBER 14, 1967
Present: J. C. Shaw, Chairman
Myron Keys, Vice-Chairman
1). K. MacVicar
Carl Paden
Joyce Schechter
Absent: James Bowman
James Ferguson
Zoning Director Eastiwood and Public Works Director Masson w~lI( also in
attendance.
Chairman: \.Jell let us commence. I think we can start since we are not
going to make any earth sh<d-hll/"'j decisions. This will be the November
14th meeting and will come to order at this moment and go right into
many little things like the roll can !l.nd approval of the minutes.
Anybody want to approve the minutesA' .
Paden: I havp a question about the minutes. I don't tchink it 1.s very
important but I will go into it elther way. I get the ! mpression from
reading th", minutes that T made " report at che last meeting which was
accepted. These are tech ni co...l terms whi ch don It necess9.rl1y mean any-
thing. It was not my intention to make a report but to submit some in-
formation for study. Let's seA if I can flnd it. It is on to the bottom
of page three. It says under Signs on Structure overhanging Right of
1.4ay: Mr. Paden, Chairman of the Comm! ttee rB9d the commi t tee report in-
to the recorn • I did not intAnd to read. a.flY report into the record.
And it says after discussion the report was accepted~ Th'lt was not my
intention either. If the 30ard accepted the report just. for study tha.t' s
O.K. but I did not this report fW submitted was not a. report from the
~ commi t tee. It wa.s just proposed changes for st.udy and dl scussion among
members of the Board but it is coming up I hope tonight.
MacVicar: lNhy don't we call it An interim reporl".?
Paden: Well, it was not a report in the normal sense of a comm! ttee re-
port. I just had some informaCion and I submitted It to thE'! Boa.rd
for study a.nd d.iscussion.
Schechter: Progress report.
Chairman: This was my error because I should have sald the words "AC-
cepted for study", that was my intention.
Paden: Well, maybe you did say that.
Chairman: No, I did not say for' study but I should have.
,
-2-
Paden: It was requested that the members --well this might be all right,
"After discussion the report was acceptsn",. That was the word that
offended me a little bit. But you did accept it. You didrj't adopt it.
You accepted it for study. I think this is all right. I move the
minutes be approved as individually read.
MacVicar: I second.
Chairman! Moved and seconded. All in favor
All: Aye,
Chairman: We done passed it. Alright, lets I-·alk about signs on structures
overhanging right-of-way.
Paden: Mr. Chairman, we have two problems here and if you have no ob-
jection I would like to introduce them up more or less tog~t~ . or
at least in sucession. One was the appointment of a committee last
year to study overhangs and encroachments on the right of way on Sun-
set Drive between Red Road and Dixie Highway. 1'[h1:ch included marquees,
awnings and various kinds of overhangs. The other is the study of the
Sign Ordinance. The same committee handled both of these problems and
we submitted a report on the 14th of June last year to the Board which
was adopted by the Board as I recall and was referred to the City Coun-
cil. They held it for a long time and recently as a few months ago --
two or three months ago, may-by --they returned it to the Board for
further study or reconsideration. Nothing has been done on that part-
icular problem but it does tie in directly with the projecting signs,
particular('j on Sunset Drive. So, I have tried to work up something
tentatively here at least for discussion on both of them. I hope every-
body has a copy of the report that was made on the 14th of June last
year. If you don't I have one copy with me. It 11 either read it or
pass it a.round.
Chairman: Why don't you read it. I,Ie probably wouldn't digest it that
quickly again.
Paden: This was on our agenda on the 26th clay of September this year.
This one applies directly to the sign ordinance and our report which
was the 14th. of June last year. The facts developed were that Sec.
20-10 of the Zoning Code establishes an official zoned right-of-way of
100' for Sunset Drive. And, Sec. 20-43.1 of the Code establishes the
building line set back on the North side of Sunset Drive from Red Road
to SW 58th Avenue at 30' from the section line running East and 1o/est
on Sunset. That would normally be considered the center line but it.
isn't the center line because the section line in Sunset is not in the
center of the street anymore. It is 50' feet from the South bound~.V .
of the zoned right-of-way but it is only 30 feet from the North bounQo.RYI
North building line. So that is the point I make there, that it is the
section line and not the center of the street. And, in this Sec. 20-34.1
which established the 30' set back for the building line on the North
side of Sunset between Red Road and SW 58th Avenue they make no mention, . . .
-3-
(Cant.) no reference to Sec. 20.10 which established Sunset as a
100' right-of-way. ~tlhich would imply at least, 50 f~et on either
side of the section line. The City Council resolution #1207, dated
6th of May 1958, granted a variance for a 30' building line set-back
from the center line of Sunset for the Goldfarb property which is the
NW corner of 58th Avenue and Sunset.
Chairman: 30' from the centerline. I,e just. decided that the center of
Sunset ~ras not--
Paden: Not the centerline, this thing said centerline but it doesn't
mean centerline it means section line because the section line was
originally the centerline of the stTeet but it isn't since that
ordinance. However, this resolution does say centerline which couldn't
be correct. You have to have one reference line. City Council Resolu-
tion #2069, which was the 17th of May 1965, granted a variance for a
30' building line set-back from the center of Sunset Drive which is
again the section line for the Green Constructlon Company property
adjacent to and "iest 1'!8Td of the Goldfarb property. Now these varia,nces
include --Well, that takes everything up and including the two prop-
erties west of 58th Avenue on the North side of Sunset. And, these
variances include more than half of the property on the North side of
Sunset between Red Road and Dixie Highway.
On the South side of Sunset Drive the majority of the property owners
have not made dedications for right-of-way purposes. The result of
these conditions is that most of the properties on both sides of Sun-
set are at least partially within the official or zoned right-of-way
but only a few actually encroach into the publicly owned right-of-way.
The greatest encroachment is that of the Crossroads Bullding which
amounts to 12'2". lVhere property has not been dedicated to conform
with the zoned right-of-way line and private property is located with-
in the zoned right-of-way, the property owner has the legal right to
make applications for variances on his property for signs, etc. Once
the property is dedicated to conform with the zoned right-of-way the
owner looses this right unless it ls specifically granted to him in the
ordinance. Therefore, most of the property owners along Sunset Drive
have the right to request variances for canopies and signs in front of
their buildings.' Those who have already made dedications do not have
this right.
Chairman: \.Jould you run through that Crossroads bit again, ~Ihere Cross-
roads comes into the public right-of-way.
Paden, Crossroads Building. That is primarily 't1here the flairing over-
hang over the sidewalk which is 12'2" into the zoned right of way.
Chairman: Did that happen by variance?
Paden: That happended by variance. Some of these things happened by
sufferenee.~ I don't know for sure which ones but there are a number
of encroachments, but that one wa.s granted I don't lmow Ttlhere. We
couldn't find the authroity for it but I thinlr it was done by Council,
by a variance granted by the Council.
-4-
(Cont.') As a result of this we made a recommendation. I'd like to
read to you the original recommendation and then the one that I am
suggesting now for discussion and possible adoption if it is agree-
able; This is Paragraph 7 of report for the 14th of June 1966:
"In view of the existing condition and the discrimination against
certain property owners, referring to those who have made dedications,
"It is the recommendation of the Committee. that the Zoning Committee -
the Zoning Code be ammenQed to permit canopys. marquees and awnings
to project a maximum of 9 feet into the actual public right-of-way
in business zones so long as the purpose is to protect the public
from the weather and provided further that no such projection shall
extend closer than 18 inches to the curb line. AdvertIsing signs
shall not be attached to canopys or awnings but may be placed above
them if attached to and parallel to the face of the building and they
shall not project therefrom more than 12 inches into the actual right-
of-way." Then we made a comment, "The Committee appreciates that the
9 foot limi ta tion on projections \·ril1 not cover the encroachments of
the Crossroads Building but it believes that one non-conforming is
preferable to any general relaxing of the restrictions on projections
into right-of-way,'
I have drafted a tentative amendment to that paragraph 7. which is
the recommendation for consideration by the members of the Comrni ttee
and the Board since I hope we are considering this as an informal
committee. If it is agreeable I would like to see that adopted as an
alOEnd'3d recommendation to this origine.l report which as I said before
was returned to us by the Council for restudy and reconsideration and,
this is the my proposal for discussion: "In vieN of the resulting
discrimination against certain property owners, it is the recommenda-
tion of the Committee that the Zoning Code be ammended to permit canopys
marquees and awnings to project a maximum of 9 feet i'1to the 'zoned',
instead of 'actual' publ; c right-of-way." 'Ie changed it to the zoned
right-of-way on the advice of the City Attorney, That's parenthetical.
"Nine feet into the zoned public right-of-way in business zones so
long as the purpose is to protect the public from the weather. and
provided further. that no such projection shall extend closer than 18'
inches inside the curb line"
The final sentence of the original paragraph relative to advertising
signs has been deleted because this item is already covered in Sec.'
3-12 of the Code which we apl"'~,·p.ntly overlooked at the time we wrote
the original report. The reme.inder of the original report is believed
to be satisfactory and is reaffirmed by the Committee. At least. that
is my suggestion. That is all on the projections an~ encroachments
on Sunset Drive.
Chairman: Let me ask a question there, Then the key words are in the
old draft "actual zoned right-of-way" and in the new draft are
Paden. The old one said "actual,public right-of-way" and the new one
says "aoned public right-of-way". The reason for that is Simple when
you see it, I thinX. This we.s brought to my attention by the City
Attorney and I am sorry he isn't here to go into some detail. The
original zoned right-of-way which is 100 feet, that is 50 feet on
either side of the section line was the centerline originally. Some
of these properties project into the right-of-way different distances.
-5-
Chairman: Because they have not dedica,ted.
Paden: Some project not at all because they have dedicated. Those
who dedicated cannot ask for variances for signs while those who
have not dedicated can. s'o, the purpose of thl.s is to change this
from actual right-of-way. It is just the correction of an error.
Also, at the time we wrote the a.mendment we did not know that this
"flat sign" business was in th'l code; The only difference was that
we did say that they could not put signs on thA 'l1a,rquees or below
them but they could put them above. The Sec. 3-12 does provide for
flat signs that project not more than 12 inches from the face of the
building. Are there any other questions on the projections or en-
croachments.' ~f not. let's take a look at proposed ttflIendment to the
sign ordinaoei" I think all of you have a copy of that.
Chairman: Last meeting we talked about 8.5 being in conflict with the
state code. Is this something we want to change?
Paden: I have discussed that with the City Attorney. He says we need
not concern ourselves with the South Florida Building Code requirement
because that applies to structures not to signs. He says the.t requires
a 9 foot clear distance between the bottom of the marquee or cantilever
and the si.clewalk grade but it does not apply to a sign which migJi}t be
attached to the underside of the marquee.
MacVicar: That isn't the way Jim Ferguson and I understand it.
Peden: I know, I was inclined to agree but this was the City Attorney
and he is the one vlho is going to have to defend this thing if it goes
to Court and he says an attachment to a str1)cture is not part of the
structure. According to his interpretationno part of the marque A or
any structual part of the marquee "au pruject lower than 9 feet from
the sidewalk grade. But he can attach a sign underneath which is not
part of the structure itself.
MacVicarl I don't want to belabor the point but there were 3 paragraphs
in the Building Code and one was on marquees, one had to do with --
well, II ve forgot ten my terms right now but there was a second paragraph
on certain attachments and a third paragre.ph said, "any other attach-
ment."
Paden: It rl1dn't say "attachments". It said any other"projectionsband
Hardie fnterprets proj ecti.ons as being part of t.he structure but not
part of a s:Ltsn. So, I don't know I took hi. s l~ord for 1 t and made the
changes on that basis.
11acVicar: Maybe he is right.
Paden: Now I did not change it. I left it at eight. Do all of you have
a copy of this memorandum of 31 October regardinp; si.gns. There is 11
memorandum from me to the Chairman of the Board. It starts off with,
"Sec. 3-13. Projecting Signs." Do you have thHt? 'i'here 1s no need
-t)-
(Cont.) for me reading all of that. The only thing I have done on
that--Now, I want to make this clear, I have not had a committee
meeting with Mr. MacVicar and 11r. Ferguson on this. I have diseussed
briefly --"lell, I couldn't get Keith. I got Ferguson on the phone
and talked to him briefly but we didn't make any decisions so this 1s
purely my suggestions of proposals for discussion. The change that I
am suggesting is under Sec. 3-13, Projecting Signs and instead of the
text we have here in this memorandum of 31 October --I don't know
whether I need read both of them or not --Maybe I should --The orig-
inal recommendation or suggestion was that "projecting signs shall
have not more than 40 sq. feet of horizontally projected area as cal-
culated from any angle and shall not project more than 4 feet from
the building to which attached nor shall the vert1.cal height of any
such sign exceed 18 feet. No part of such sign shall extend more than
5 feet above the top of the parapet wall on a building with a flat roof
nor more than 5 feet above the eave line on a building with a pitched
roof. No projecting sign shall be constructed or erected so as to
extend or project over any portion of any sidewalk, street, alley or
public way or public property extend that projecting signs may be suspended
under awnings, marquees Dr cantilevers provides they are nut more than
one foot in vertical het~h';, five foot in horizontal length and do not
extend beyond the outer edge of the structure to whieh attached. The
vertlca,l clearance betNeen the lower edge of such sign and the side-
walk grade shall be not less than B~ feet." I also offered an alter-
nate ('!raft of that parti cular pa,ragraph and that says, II Projecting
signs shall have not more than 40 sq. ft. of horizontally projected
area as calculated from any angle and shall not project more than 4
feet from the building to which attached nor shall the vertical height
of such exceed 18 feet. No part of any such sign shall extend more
than 5 feet above the top of the parapet wall on a building with a
flat roof nor more than 5 feet above the eave line of a building with
a pitched roof. No projecting sign shall be constructed or erected
so as to extend or project over any portion of any Sidewalk, street,
alley or public way or public property except that projecting signs
may be suspended under existing aNnings". Now that word "existlngll
can cause some controversy and I'll take care of that tn a moment.
"Existing awnings, marquees or cantilevers provided they are not more
than one foot in vertical height, 5 feet in horIzontal length and do
not extend beyond the outer edge of the structure to which attached,
and, further provided, that the owner or lessee __ " This is an
addition __ " That the owner or lessee of such sign accepts full
responsibili ty therefor and provides adequate llabill ty insurance to
cover any damage or injury caused to others by AllCh installation.
The vertical clearance between the lower edge of such sign and the
sidewalk grade shall be not less than Bt feet.
Chairman: I had a note to myself there whether this is legal.
MacVicar: Did you question George about the insurance?
Paden: Yes. The City Attorney said we cannot completely abdicate or
evade our responsibility. The City cannot evade its responsibility
by putting something of this kind in here but it can share the re-
sponsibility; in that case, with owner or lessee of the property, the
person who's responsible for the sign. And also, he thought it would
have a ben6~lcial effeet on the number of these signs we might have to
put up with. I think he is thinking in terms of fewer. possible claims
and easier to defend if the City can show that it did everything with-
in reason that a prudent man would do to protect itself against
-7-
(Cant.) liability, that the City probably wouldn't be liable or
wouldn't be stuck with liable payments. Now, since that alternate
proposal was written further discussions have resulted in this
suggestion which is slightly different from that.
MacVicar: Change two words.
Paden: That's about right.
MacVicar: Put one in and took one out.
Paden: Also something else here. You're talking about I left out that
"existing" which slipped in there accidentally.
}!acVicar: Right and you put in "identification".
Paden: "Tell, I put in "identification sign". Let's see, is there any-
thing else.
Chairman: In this new draft that you handed out, what is changed?
Paden: Under the one I just read, tt. says "except that projecting signs
may be "uspended under existing al-mings".
Chairman: And, what line do I look for~
Paden: Line 10, next to the last. word.
Chairman: O.K.
Paden: Strike out "existing",
MacVicar: And put the '10rd "identification" before "projeoting".
Mrs; Scheohter left. the meeting.
Paden: That's right, exoept identification signs. In other words, to
distinguish between advertising signs and identification signs.
Mass.on: Is this on your alternate draft?
Paden: 1.'lhat? No, I don't think you have a copy of this • .I'll give you
a copy later. This is one I just wrote up and my typewriter will only
run three oopies that were lEgible. The thing goes the same down to
the 7th line which says "No projeoting sign shall be projected or
erected so as to extend or project over any portion of a.ny 3idewalk,
street, alley, publio way or publio pro~erty exoept that projeoting
identifioation signs may be suspendedj,q~wnings, marquees or oantlltvers
provided that they are not more than one foot in vertical height, five
feet in horizontal length and do not extend beyond the outer edge of
the struoture to which attached; and further provided, that the owner
or the lessee of the property"--iJow that was on the suggestion of the
City Attorney, instead the other one ,,,del "owner or lessee of the sign".
-8-
(Cont.) "The owner or lessee of the property accepts full responsibility
for such sign and provides adequate liability insurance to cover any
damage or injury caused to others by such installation. The vertical
clearance between the lONer edge of such sign and the sidewalk grade
shall be not lr-Wl'l than 8~ feet" • That was just an arbitrary figure
that I picked not out of the air exactly. I think Sec. 3-12, N,1ich
deals with flat signs says that the bottom of a flat sign shall be at
least 8~ feet above the sideNalk grade, so it could be 8! feet, it
could be 8 feet, it could be 7~ feet, whatever the majority thinks
would be proper. I Nas inclined to drop it to 8 feet but I thought
since the other two members of the Committee and I had apparently
agreed more or less on the 8i feet we didn't have to stick to this 9
foot thing in ~he South Florida Building Code. So, that is something
tha t could be varied either way. You can go up ~,o 9 feeL or you can
go d01'ill to 8 if you wanted to or to 7"h feet.
MacVicar: I'd like to make a motion. Nay I make a motion Mr. Chairman?
ChaIrman: Please do but wait until our'quorum comes back.
NacVicar: Don't we have a quorum?
Paden: Incidentally, that 910se8 all I have to offer. As far as I am
concerned, you are open for discu8'31on, motion or ~rhatever you want
to do.
Chairman: While we are waiting 1'01' Nrs.Schechter, on your comment under
Sec. 3-15, my question Nas, ,\re there any 81.gn8 now that are over
25 feet?
Paden: I thInk Steve will have to answer that. To my kno~'11erlge there
are three signs that are 25 feet, Lehman8, Royal Castle, and Arby's,
but I don't know that th'~re are any that are over 25 feet. Do you
know?
Nasson: The South Ni.ami Shopping Center sign, The identification sign
they have out front.
Paden: That's more than 21 but is it more than 25?
Masson: I believe it is.
Paden: They have a variance on that sign but I have forgotten what the
height is.
Masson: I believe it is over 25 feet.
Chairman: My suggestion is going to be, if there are many, then maybe
you can change the figure 25 to something highc1:' to bring as many of
these folks under our new deal as possible. If it is just one, then
fine, leave it as it is.
-9-
Paden: I don't know for sure but I doubt if anybody other than Food
Fair has a Bign higher than 25 feet 1n South Miami. Those three --
They granted a variance to Arby'!) for 25 feet, they granted one to
Royal Castle, they granted one to Lehman, I think for 25 feet.
MacVicar: Lehman doesn't have one. McDonalj hamburgers does.
Paden: McDonalds has one. That's 25 isn't it.
MacVicar: Yes
Chairman: RIght, The other comment is Sec. 3-20 where the Committee
commented to delete the entire section on non-conforming signs. Is
there any harm 1n leaving that in case something should happen along
the line where Hardie would need this thing?
Paden: I doubt that it serves any purpose because if it has not been en-
forced, it was supposed to be enforced in 1961. It has never been en-
forced and I don't think it can be enforced without causing a great
deal of hardship on the merchants \>J'ho own or lease these signs. It
l~ould seem to me that if you have an ordinance that is not being en-
forced or can't be enforced. you are bet ter to repeal it than to leave
it on the books just as so much deadwood that someone might take up
5 years from now and make an issue of. It doesn't seem to make very
good sense I don't belleve.
Chairman: ~!y thinll:ing was that it looks 111(e postine; El highway for a
speed limit of 60 miles per hour and you probab!y don'l; pnforco 1t
and let them go 70, but somewhere along the way "J(" might need that
in Court. We mIght need to point out that there is A 60 mile an
hour limit and it is so posted; therefore, I don't know, I'm just a
little --
Paden: It could very well boomerang.
MacVicar: You are talking about a comparison of a speed limit as to the
Code not to Sec. 3-20 which was a section written in there with dates
in it.
Paden: This !'las passed in 1958 and 1,,13.8 aimed at I;ho"o peOPle who were ill
violation of the new code and they !'lere given 3 years to correct it.
Chairman: Oh, and that's all it said?
MacVicar: It is a dated section that Nas never enforced and in my opinion
doesn't mean anything.
Chairman: Those are the only comments I have. 1)0 you still want to make
a motion? Wli'll wait if you do.
-10-
MacVicar: Let me make the motion then somebody can read it back" I
move that we recommend to the City Council that the City Attorney
prepare an ordinance or ordinances to accomplish the following: (1)
an ordinance to permit canopys, marquees, etc. ill zoned public right-
of-way in accordance with our committee report of !LIth June. the
original one, 14 June 1966, with recommendation·¥7 a_mended as shown
on committee report of 14 November 1967. I'll give this to the Sec-
retary. Further, JI2 to accomplish the following cUllendments to the
Sign Ordinance.
You
Paden: Keith, would4make those as two separate motions, one on encroach-
ments and projections and the other on the Sign Ordinance, for the re-
cord.
MacVicar: O.K. Do I have G second on the first one?
Paden: I'll second the first one.
MacVicar: S<"cond motion. That the Sign Ordinance be a mended as follows:
3-13, Projecting Signs be o..mended to read as follows; and take the
paragraph on the Committee report of November 14, 1967. Sec. } .. l5,
Detached Signs. This limit be increased from 21 to 25 feet. Sec.
3-20, Non conforming Signs. 'lelete entire seeti.on. Sec. 3··26, 1'01'
sale or leas9 signs. Reduce set-backs. Does that read from zoned
right-of-way line?
Paden: Property line.
MacVicar: Heduce set .• back from property line to 10 fc,:t i.n I1ne of 20
feet. Sec. 3-38, Streamer Lights, u,mend to allo;) 50 'Natt lights in
lieu of 25,' Sec. 3-40. Scratch that a comment on ehe Chamber of'
Commerce recommendation. End of motion.
Paden: I'll second it •
. Chal.rman: Since we don't a.ll have a copy of the 14 of' November report,
could we table this and t.hen have the minut.es reflect your lengthy
motion for study~
MacVicar: It wasn't so lengthy.
Chairman: And then a quick discussion and vote at the next meeting, be •.
cause very frankly, I got lost. The second motion is fine.' I've got
it right here but the first motion, I lost you because you referred
to 14 November that I haven't read yet •.
Paden: That is the one you have in
change. You have what it refers
31 of October. You may not hav,
front of you now. That 1s the only
to which is my memorandum to you on
it with you but you have ito
Chairman: What's in the motion that I haven't read in my report that I
had last week.
-11-
Paden: There are two things in the motion that you didn't have in the
other one; One was we knocked off the last sentence. Joe, here's
what we've changed.' The original recommendation on the 14 of June
1966 said "In view of existing oonditions and resulting disorimination
against oertain property owners it is reoommended that the Zoning Code
be ammended to permit' oanopys, marquees and almings to pro j ect a
maximum of 9 feet into the actual publio right-of-way". Now we say
the "zoned right-of-way"; Wait just a minute there is one other thing.
Then we say in the original one that "advertising signs shall not be
attached to oanopys or awnings but may be placed above them if attached
to and parallel to the faoe of the building and they shall not project
therefrom more than 12 inohes into the actual right-of-way". We have
taken that sentence out entirely because that type of sign is covered
in Sec. 3-12, Flat Signs, which we overlooked at the time we wrote that
thing.
Mrs. Schechter returned to the meeting"
Chairman: I'm unconfused. Mrs.' Schechter would you like to hear the
motion.'
MacVicar: It is all there on the paper. I want to get rid of this thing.
Keys: l.-Ihy don't you tell Mrs. Schechter what you did.
MacVicar: ~'e have two motions on the floor. One. recommends to the City
Council instruct the City Attorney prepare an ordinance permitting
marquees, canopys. etc. in pu'!:Jlic right-of-way as per our report of a
year ago with this change, Paragraph 7. which was the change Carl dis-
cussed. The second, motion is that in conjunction with that the Sign
Ordinance be changed.. Sec. 3-13, be a-Mended to read a,s follows which
he also read, and that Sec. 3-15. 3-20, 3-26 and 3-38 be a.mended as
on the submission of 31 October.
Paden:: That is just a revision of the alternate draft which we got two
weeks ago. I had a. discussion "lith the Ci ty Attorney and made a, fe~1
minor changes as a result of that.
MacVicara I might point out on this whole thing that this started with
problems on Sunset Drive and in sign applications which they were un-
able to issue without variances. They are still in the same boat there
with this 8t foot limit because a great number of the marquees along
Sunset are not 9 feet above the sidewalk. There is no way, if this is
passed in the form we are talking about we still have a raft of non-
conforming signs along Sunset and we still are going to have to give
variances or not let them have a sign.
Paden: There is nothing in the Code at the present time that authorizes
those signs at all. This does authorize them.
MacVicar: Under marquees, they would need a variance on height limitations.
Paden: Only about 6 of them can comply.
-12-
Chairman: The variance in that case vmuld be automatic. where before --
Paden: The variance would be on vertical clearance.
HacVicar: Right.
Pe,de'l: If th(lY can't make 9 feet --I mean 8i\' feet, maybe some of them
can make 8, some of them can make 7~j, but the signs are already there
and it vrould authoriJ!:c extension of the sign undGr the marquee.
Eastwood: Hr. Paden, if this is passed in the form in which it has now
been rGcommended, do you have any idea as to how many non-conformin"
siGns there ~'lill be?
Paden: 1\11 except 6 of the signs 1J1lSpended under marquees on Sunset
Drive would be in violation of the vertical clearance because they
I thinl{ 9' 3" is about the highest cleara,nce on marquees on Sunset
Drive. Some have as little as
Hac-Vi carl ~Hth 13,11 the existins 8i[,;ns ---. 1\11 existinG signs now are
non conforming? They are ilJs",al.
Ee,stwood: All exi.''lting signs arE'> ille::3al. They were placed without per-
mits.
Pad,en: They were not authorized.
l1acVicar: If this were passed are you going --
Eastwood: If this is passed then I have to go back and require conformance.
l1erely because a man has violated the laN does not give him any prior
rights.
l1acVicar:Then we are back to the paradox of the whole thinI'; starting as a
problem on Sunset Drive but we are told that we munt prepare an or-
dinance applicable city wide.
Eastwood: 'i/e don't have any problems else1'lhere.
l1acVicar: No, but you don't want to prepare a,n ordinance that vrould allow
marquees with signs 6'~ feet off the sidewalk.
Eastwood: That shouldn't be the case on Sunset Drive either.-
Paden: No. It won't be the case.-7'6" is the least on Sunset Drive.
MacVicar: "-1ell, then you've Got to go tell, about 80% of those people to
tear their signs d,own because they can't meet this because these mar-
quees are so low.
Eastwood: Now thif' is the thing I want you to be a,ware of. Because they
vJere put up illEgally they have aquired no rights.
~lacVicar: I understand what you're saJ'ing.-
Shaw: '"That is your recommendation?
-13-
MacVicar: My personal opinion on existing marquees and signs on Sunset"
if you want to make them lega] , is to give all the variances that are
required.'
Eastwood. Certainly, no, one should have a right to overhang the right-
of-way and put a sign less than 8' from ground.'
Schechter: But they are there already.
Paden: I think only 6 signs on Sunset are less than 8 feet~
Schechter: lihat about giving them variances.
Eastwood: The only way you can do that is to have them make individual
applications.
MacVicar: 8' is sort of arbitrary.
Paden: It could be 8." It could be 7i1! if you want to go that low.
According to the City Attorney, he says it doesn't make any difference.
He says it does not tle in with the South Florida Building Code. On
Sunset Drive you have, I think, 6 signs that are in violation now by
small amounts. Archers has 7'11" clearance from the cantilever down.
If he had a sign a foot wide attached to the cantilever, he would
have a foot less than that. He has 7' 11", I don't knol~ how his sign
is attached.
}!acVicar: "fait a minute. ',That number are you on?
Paden: Number 2.
]P,acVicar: You've got to take 2 minus 5 and 6.
Paden: Hell, you don't have to have any 6. You can hB,VP' the sign right
up against the cantilever if you l~ant to.'
MacVicar: Yes, but you are talking about existing si[,ns. If you are just
going to talk about eXisting, if you take 2 mInus 5 and 6, then 80%
of those --
Paden: Yes, that is right;
}lacVicar: And some of them could be moved.
Paden: Some of them could be shortened up, I knol~ because I looked at
them. Some of them are just tNO little screw-eyes. They couldn't
be shortened much.
Eastl~ood: You recall how this whole problem arose. There were signs that
had been erected ill£gally in the past. People were coming and asking
for signs that Here the same as those erected lll",ge,lly. I 'had to turn
them down. I brought this to the Board .,ith the idea that you would
make a regulation that would be reasonable in approving "reasonable
signs" but certainly would not approve everything that anyone had chosen
to put up.
-14-
MacVicar: But the problem is the illegal marquees that are there.
Paden: The Florida Building Code will take care of it in the future.
MacVicar: You aren't going to make them tear down all of the marquees ..
Paden: The Florida Building Code requires 9' minimum clearance between
grade and the bottom of the marquee.
Eastwood: A great number of these marquees were erected prior to the
adoption of the South Florida Building Code.
Paden: That's right and most of those are in violation.'
Eastwood: But the South Building Code also provides for an 8'6" clearance
on signs over sidewalks.
Paden: On flat signs it does and so does our Sign Code.
MacVicar: This where we have a little difference in how we read it and
how George Hardie reads it.
Paden: I think 8 would be ample so far as necessity is concerned.
Eastwood: Hr. 11asson has the language of the South Florida Building Code.
Masson: This is under the section on projecting signs, "No sign pro-
jecting over any part of the public sid81~a11( shall be erected less
than 9 feet vertically above any part of such sidewalk".
MacVicar: This is what we thought.
Paden: That specifies "sign"? In the Building Code?
~lacVicar: Hardie .~as trying to tell Carl it was 9 feet to the marquee.
That l~asn't the way we ree.d it either. This was Jim Ferguson's big
question: Can we do this? And, if so, does it mean going in front
of the Metro Appeals Board on the thing as far as our Ordinance is
concerned and as far as each individual party is concerned? But to
get a height limitation that will make most of the signs on Sunset
conforming, or make it possible for them to put up a conforming Sign
if they raise what they've got, maybe it's hanging on a chain, you're
going to have to get down 7 feet above the sidewalk.
Paden: Five of them could conform. Six of them could not ..
Eastwood: It is not proper to give an individual that 'right over a
public right-of-way ..
Schechter: But what are you going to do if these people have put them
up.' You can't go and tell a slew of people that they have to pull
them down ..
HacVicar: You can legally.'
-15-
Schechter: You can legally but do we want to do this.to our business
people?
Paden: I don't think so.
Schechter: I don't feel so either.
Paden: There are a few signs there that should come down because they
were not only illegally put up but they are too low.' They create a
certain hazarcl..'
Eastwood: It would be ~ much simpler proposition for me. From my stand-
pOint, the easiest thing in the I~orld would be if this Board says in
the City of South Miami is O.K. and legal from this point on. This
makes it a lot easier; hO'"ever, this the Council relies on this Board
for l'1hat is reasonable so the Board should come up with something that
is reasonable, and whatever you come up with the Council is probably
going to pass. The problem is that you don't have power to vary the
South Florida Building Code; therefore even if you approve these at
5',6', 7' or 8', someone coming making application in the future for
a sign 7' above grade will be turned down.' Hhile it will conform to
our Zoning Regulations it ~Tlll not conform to the South Florida Build-
ing Cod,e.' At which point the person can come before you say nlvhy is
it that I, who chose to act legally and put my sign up legally with a
permit, cannot get a permit and people who p"t signs up without per-
mi ts are permitted to keep their signs. It pays to viole,te the laH".'
Schechter: No, but what you tell them is that these people have been in
business here many years and that our enforcement or that our Code
went in recently. That since this date I~e don't do it anymore.
Eastwood: Frankly, if I told them that I wouldn't be telling them the
truth.
Schechter: Hell, isn't that ~rhat He would be doing if we passed this?
East~rood: I mean the fact that they have been in business many years and
that I1hen they put the signs up they were proper.
Schechter:
that as
we will
No, not that it was proper but that when they put them up,
of this time, this is the situation with me that in the future
not do this.
Eastwood: ':Jhat action would you suggest in mak:i.ng these signs conform to
the South Florida Building Code, which they do not.'
Schechter: Just classify them as non-conforming signs.
Eastwood: You can't classify something annon-conforming signn unless it
is a non-conforming sign.
Schechter: It's non-conforming.'
-16-
Eastwood: A non-conforming sign is a sign that. was legal when it was
installed and has become illegal since because of a che.nge in re-
gulations or an adoption of regulations;' These signs were illegal
when installed both as concerns the Sign Regulations and the South
Florida Building Code.' '
Paden: You are right, these are not non-conforming signs.'
Eastwood: These are illegal signs.'
Schechter: Hhat you are doing then is --You're saying that this
legislation is retroactive and it was my understanding when you
legislate you don't make things retroactive.'
Eastwood: You can't make any legislation retroactive;
Schechter: 1:/ell so that 'how can our Board --perhaps I misunderstand
you but then you are saying that we should make this retroactive.;
Paden: No, there wasn't any la~T that let them put the sign up at all .. ;
HacVicar: If they were legal now and we passed a law under which they
Nould be illegal, they would then be non-conforming signs by definition
and we could not retroactively make them ta.ke them down;' Herb~' ;,JOint
is that they were illegal ,when they l~ere put up, they have been that
lQay all along and they are illegal today.'
Schechter: l1ell, are they hazards?
Eastwood: I don't know.
Schechter: I would think that this should be the determination now.
Eastwood.: The determination is, "l~hat is the law." Hhether
a hazard or not is a jury question when you go to court.
thing violates the lavl or not is something else.
something is
Hhether some-
Chairman: Now George Hardie informs the COmIni ttee that we need not adhere
to the 9 foot rule in the state Code.'
MacVicar: George Hardie is wrong.'
Eastwood: It is not the State Code, it is the South Florida Building Code;
Paden: I don't know how he interpre+t; that.. He says it does not apply to
signs attached under marquees. It applies to the marquee and any part
of the structure of the marquee, but does not apply to signs but just
read right there that it d.oes apply to signs.
Eastt'Tood: The definition of II structure" also includes signs.
Paden: The vertical, clearance under a marquee must be 9 foot.'
-17-
MacVicar: 1ve ini;,upret one paragraph under there to mean signs also.'
We didn't read the Sign Section; I don't think George did either.
Schechter: The way I see it, sitting here, thp. problem seems to be that
there is a legal misunderstanding or iniERPR£tation and I think this
has to be threashed out between Hr. Hardie and Nr; Eastwood before we
can do anything to see who we have to adhere to. Our City Manager --
Our City Attorney I~ho is supposed to --Isn't his legal --and you
have your obligations in directing us but think that we have gotto
reach on agreement beh~een the two of you.'
Eastwood: Mv auestion is purely a pract1cal one. People don't care too
much and don't feel they have been had too badly if they get every-
thing everybody else has. But, the reason Ne have this problem now
and the reason it ca,me up originally was b"cause signs had been placed
up illegally and when I came here I sa.1f that no more illega.1. nigns
were put up; Therefore, people ;'lould come in asking for permits and
say, "How did he get it ancl I r.an't." No~;, once you he_ve approved
these you have not reall:,' ma.de them legal.
Schechter: Jut you have not approved them.
Eastlqood: If you pass a la~l naying everything dor,rn there is fine then
theY're Ie 3;13.1 , except they do not comply with the 30uth Florida 3uild-
ine; Cod e.
Schechter: I don't knO~l Nhy you are so Horried about I~hat these people
are going to do when you as the Zoning man involved cOll11 not Give them
the O.K. Say," I never gave ita_nil. it Nas IH'one; before it happened.
This is hON it is".
Eastwooil.: That is not the pro"blem Hrs.-Schechter. '-'hen a person cO'Cl~S
in here a,nd he is not a1)le to get somethin" that someone else has he
becomes very unhappy about it. A nil ,chis is sure to happen within a
very short time after this regulation 1s pafJsed.
Schechter:
dOl'll and
business
bunch of
East wood_:
You don't thin1c those peop1e that you are going to have to go
tell theY've got to take their siens d01vl1, Ivho have been in
there a long time --They're are not goinG to be an unhappy
people'l
I don't mind msking people unhappy if they have acted illeG'ally.
Schechter: If they're the riGht I{ind of people beca,use you seem to. be
concerned about the people l'lho 8.re comine in but you don't care about
who are in business now.-
Eastlvood: I am concerned only about legal i Ty •
Schechter: Great. Then I think it ought to be settled between Mr. IIs.rdie
s.nd yourself and from there ~le ought to ,move'-I just can't see if 11r.-
Hard1e ge.ve us thifJ rule we are to go' by then I thinl{ 1 t has got to be
follo~J()d •
Chairmana All right, let me make this suggestion. I'd like to table
the first motion.'
MacVicar: I'd like to l~ithdraw all my motions. I give up.
Chairman: No. I like your second motion. Lets go on the second job,'
Let's put Council to work.
MacVicar:. It's illegal.
Chairman: No. The second one isn't illegal. Haybe I've got the wrong
motion,'
Paden: The first motion was on encroachments and overhang. There is
nothing l',rong ",i th that.
HacVica.r: The first motion is all right.
Chairman: l'fhy don't we do this. Let's ta}{e the second motion an<i table
it.' Then you f ello~rs take it back and hash it again.
Paden: Hr. Chairman, I'm not in the mood to take it back any further.
Helve done all we ca.n do. I've conferred l;ith the City Attorney at
least J times on this thin!,:. I think, since there appears to be a
difference of opinion between the Ci ty ~lanager and the City Attorney
i t ~'iould be appropriate for hIm or his representa.ti ve to confer with
the City Attorney and i.ron this thing out.
EastNood: There is not a difference of opinion.
Paden: There is a difference in intl<,fPretation.
Eastwood: No. All I am attempting to d.o is to ca.11 to your attention the
effect of pa.ssin(l; this 1m". I agree wholeheartil"' l"ith Hr. Hardies
int,;}!Pr'ltation but I am trying to call to your attention that this is
going 'co cause problems that .you appa,rently hav~ not considered.
Chairman: I'm confused. Do I understa.nd you to say tha.t Hardie's inter-
pretation of the 9 feet was not your intepretation of the 9 feet.
lTlOCcVica,r: Before you cane in tonic;ht Carl I'ras reading eoing over thin
and mentioned speakine Nith Hr. Hardie. Ha,rrUe gave him an opinion
88 I understood you to [my, that the 9 foot vertical clearance from
ddcl-ralks to bottom of something in the South Florida Building Code
a.pplied to me.rqu8es and clid no apply to signe. ",here was no vertical
height limit on nigns and I think '·Ir. Eardic is in error from what.
Steve just read. Ferguson e:nd I thought differently the other day.
I don't thl.nk he read far enough or read the right sectio11.' .'30 this
is the whole problem we're talkinG about no~r. Does the South Florida
Buildin~ Code control vertical height clearances to the bottom of a
Dien? From what you just rea.d it does.' In Nhich case my next question
is --
Eastwood: Remember 1t'1s you and Jim --Not me.
-19-
MacVicar: It's me and you and Jim and some other people --Not just you
and George.' But, assuming the South Florida Buildlng Code does con-
trol l~i th a 9 foot vertical clearance to signs and has some legal con-
trol that is legally binding on us in some way, what is your suggestion
in solving the problem on Sunset Drive?
Eastwood: There is only one proper I'ray to do it and that is to require
that the signs be removed; however; this would cause nothl.ng but trouble.
MacVicar: If you follow that philosophy you are going to have to make
them remove a bunch of marquees also.
Paden: If you make them remove them on Sunset Drive you'll also have to
make them remove some on Red Road.'
MacVicar: The marquees have non-conforming status because they were in
before the building code was adopted.
Paden: Red Road has 8 signs that are non-conforming; possibly a 9th one,
I'm not sure about that,' The difference is close. SUnflet Drive has
11 signs, 6 of which are non-conforming, 5 of which would meet the re-
quirements. They all are illege,l at the moment because there was no
authority for installing in the first place.
MacVicar: Isn't there a possibility that some of these signs are also
non-conforming rather than illegal by definition. Houldn't some of
them predate not only the South Florida Building Coel.e but also the
South lUami Sign Ordinance.' It l~ould take some research.
Eastwood: It's conceivable.
Schechter: Archer's is one that's been there an awfully long time.
Paden: Pe.rdon,'
Schechter: Archer's is one I would almost think is. It has been there
as long as the building has been there as I can remember.
MacVicar: But there is no question that a lot of them are illegal.'
Eastl~ood: Just thinking about this thing --legal or not legal --
from a pre.ctical standpoint it may be best to pass this thing the
way you recommended it because it is only going to lead to blood-
&H~ to go down there and tell some of those people they are going
to have to take them down.' There is no question but they violated
the law and there is no question that we will have people in the
future who want the same thing. This is what ha"'pens when the easy
choice is taken and people are permitted to violate the law. There
comes a time of reckoning and we find a situation like this. People
feel they have gained some kind of rights by violating the law.
Paden: Adverse possession.
-20-
Eastwood: But if you have been maki~g bootleg liquor since 1890 and
they catch you, you're still guilty.'.
Schechter: Not unless you drink it all.
MacVicar: I still think we need to iron out this 9 feet. Whether we're
stuck with that or not.'
Eastwood: The only way the 9 feet will ever come up is that one of these
days some Metro inspector will come in to see the quality of Code en-
forcement in municipalities, 1~hich we all know is going to come about,
this is'going to be the basis they are going to use to take over
building inspections;
MacVicar: How are they enforcing this in the County? Do you have any
idea? They allow 9 foot marquees and they have a 9 foot limit on
signs --Unless a guy builds his marquee 11 foot clear.
Eastwood: You don't find any signs hanging under marquees over public
property.
Paden: How about Dadeland?
EaRtwood: That's private property dONn there.
MacVicar: 'flere talking about public rie;ht-of-l'1ay only, aren't 1"e?
Paden: Ves
Eastwood:
to have
This is
nut one of these days and you can count on it,
those boys coming in looklng for all the fault
the kind of thing they are Going to look for.
you're going
they can find.
Schechter: 'Iell, l~e only have the one spot and I think we have explained
what we are up against. I would say from what I've seen in the Sey-
bold Building and other places they may have had similar situations.
I just can't see offending people who are in business here now. I
can see stopping any more of it if it is not a .good idea.
Ea.stwood: The signs in the Seybold Building Nill also be the basis of
Metro taking over building inspections in the City of Miami.
Schechter: Then we won't be alone.
Paden: I'd like to ask Mrs. Schechter one question. Did I understand
you to say that you only have one spot?
Schechter: From what you said 01l~ sore spot apparently is Sunset Drive.
Paden: Sunset Drive, Red Roa,d an'] :'\i.rd Road.
Schechter: But our worst offender w1th hanging signs, lsn't that under
marquees in the Crossroads Buildinc.
-21-
Paden: Well, there are 11 signs on Sunset most of which could not con-
form to this proposed ordinance. There are 8 on Red Road, which is
around the corner, and then there are two more here on Red Road --
That's 10 on Red Road. Sunset, Red and Bird Road are the places where
you have the violations. '
Schechter: Our worst spot, place where it's Norleeable, is Sunset and Red.
Paden: Sunset and Red are equally bad.'
Schechter: And that happens to be our heaviest business area. I would
hate to do anything to make those people's lives miserable.
'Chairman: Let me ask Herb a question. A few minutes ago you said re-
gardless of what we passed, you could not issue a permit for less than
9 because this would be illegal. Now, I think your second thought is
perhaps we should go ahead with the 8 point but ."till, what is your
posi tion if someone comes in and asks for a permit?
Eastwood: !4hen a building permit is applied for, it must be checked as 1:0
compliance with zoning regulations and the South Florida Building Code.
If it is in violation of either one it has to be turned down.
Chairman: Then, to follow your thinking, what will we gain by coming
through with an 8.5 requlrement?
Eastwood: It will be a questionable approval of existing signs. In the
law there is a doctrine that would probably help them known as the
doctrine of "laches". In certain types of cases where a person has
done a thing --technical non-compliances with the law --for a period
of time, you loose your right to run him out. No,~ this is a doctrine
that is not used so often between an individual and a public corporation.
It is more likely to be used between t"'0 individuals or two private
corporations. Where something is theor'eti:::ally a crime when it is put
up, it is treated a little bit differently than where it were an in-
vasion of someone else's private right. There are some cases where
the doctrine of laches is invoked against public corporations. At
least we've got something to hang ,our hat on as justification for change
in the lal~.
MacVicar: I'd like to o..lnend my motion. --My second motion.
Eastwood: Would you mind starting off fr~sh? Is there something in here
that takes care of the sign that is on the front of the canopy?
MacVicar: We think there is. 'ile think it is covered under Sec. 3-12 of
the present code.'
Paden: 3-18, I believe it is on the marquee signs.
MacVicar: Let me make my a.mendment and we will talk about that. Subject
to a legal opinion from the City Attorney that the proposed rewo'rding
of Sec. 3-13, Projecting Signs, in the last line, the clearance between
lower edge and sidewalk' shall be, not less than 8.0 feet.
-22-
Paden: I've battled this thing long enough. I'd like to get it settled.
George, before anybody puts you on the spot, I'd like to explain that
I said I had a conversation with you and I understood you to say that
we could recommend an ordinance on signs for an 8* foot clearance above
the sidewalk grade regardless of the fact that the South Florida
Building Code specifies 9 feet.
,
Hardie: You should make your recommendation and the Council will get an
opinion as to leg~lity but you should pass what you feel is right.
MacVicar: That's what I just did. In other words, he isn't going to
give us a legal opinIon tonight. He is goin¥ to do it tomorrow. If
we can do it, I'd rather go to 8 feet than 8".'
Paden: I'll go with you on that.
MacVicar: Then the motions as CUIIended are:
Motion 1: "7. Recommendation: In view of the resulting discrimina,tIon
against certain property owners, it is the recommendation of the commit-
tee that the Zoning Code be amended to pennit canopies, marquees, and
awnings to project a maximum of nine (9) feet into the zoned public
right-of-way in business zones, so long as the purpose is to protect
the public from the weather, and provided, further that no such pro-
jection shall extend closer than eighteen (lfl) inches inside the curb-
line."
Motion 2: "Section 3-13, Projecting Signs: Projecting signs shall
have not more than forty (1+0) square feet of horizontally pro jected
area, as calculated from any angle; and shall not project more than
four (4) feet from the building to which attached, nor shall the
vertical height of such sign exceed eighteen (18) feet. No part of
"'"ch sign shall extend more than five (5) feet above the top of the
parapet wall on a building with a flat roof nor raore than ft ve (,5)
feet above the eave line on a bullding with a pitched roof.' No pro-
jecting sign shall be constructed or erected so as to extend or pro-
ject over any portion of any side~lalk, street, alley, or public way,
or public property, except that projecting identification Signs may
be suspended under awnings, marquees, or cantilevers, provided they
are not more than one (1) foot in vertical height, five (5) feet in
horizontal length, and do not extend beyond the outer edge of the
structure to which attached; and further provided that the owner or
lesse~ of the property accepts full responsibility for such sign and
provides adequate liabllity insurance to cover any damage or injury
caused to others by such installation. The vertical clearance between
the lower edge of such ,,1,"'11 and the sidewalk grade shall be not less
than eight (8) feet."
Sec. 3-15. Detached signs. Height limit be increased from 21' to 25'.
Sec. 3-20.' Nonconforming signs. Delete entire section.
Sec. 3-26. For sale or lease signs. Setback be reduced to 10'.
Sec.' 3-38. Streamer lights. Streamer lights should be liniited to
50 1'Tatts.
-23-
Cha1rman: On the ammendments to the mot1on 2.
A11: Aye
Polled: Yes; 5. No;'O
Cha1rman: On the mot1on 2 as ·~mended.
All: Aye
Polled: Yes; 5. No; 0
Chairman: On mot1on 1.
All: Aye
Polled: Yes; 5. No; 0
Eastwood: Mr. Paden. do you have any idea how many signs there that will
not clear the sidewalk by 8 feet~
Paden: On Sunset Dr1ve there are 5. On Red Road there a.re 7.
-24-
Item 2 Study of Overall Plan -Red Road Area.
Keys: I want to refer to the map that Steve sent out. Steve sent a
oopy of our report and on the baok inoluded the map. Item No. I,
in whioh he said 137-5' of Traot 4, we reoommend RU-5A zoning. '''hen
you marked the map you marked the East.
Chai man: "hioh one is that?
Keys: No. 1 on the map.
Eastwood: If you want a run-down on them I'll give it to you.
Keys: Steve, you see what I mean now on No. 1,(' On your map on the back
page.
Masson: Yes.
Keys: \Ie' re talking about the "lest 137ft feet whereas you blocked out the
East portion.
Chairman: What's 1n there now?
Keys: Bastholm is on the front and Mrs. Ruhl is on the rear. Mrs. Ruhl
has a house on the back l37'~ feet which is RU-l zoning at this time.
Chairman: All right. "That is happening between Mrs. Ruhl and the Shore
Building?
Keys: Nothing.
Chairman: Are there homes there now?
Keys: No. Fossey, Fossey, Martin, Shore Building.
Chairman: That's all parking back there?
Keys: That's all parking back there and fenced in. Now Herb give me
your legals.
Eastwood: On the Thoro Property, in the sketch that has been made up,
that 150' is made to line up with the rear of the block. 150' does
not come back that far. 150' would line up with the rear of the first
lot.
Paden: The 150' is the rezoning the remainder is RU-l with a variance
for parking.
MaoVicar: Just like behind the Shore Building.
Eastwood: You can't give a variance for parking use.
Paden: We did on the Shore Building.
Eastwood: You haven't done it since George Hardie has been City Attorney.
Hardie: They did it against my advice.
Eastwood: It is not legal, not proper and you can't do it.
Paden: You can do it by deed restriction can't you?
Eastwood: You would have to rezone it, then put the deed restriction
on it. You can't permit a use to be made in there by putting a deed
restriction on it. If it is single family it doesn't permit parking.
Keys', We were going on the basis that the reason it was done was to
protect the residential property.
Eastwood: Regardless of your reason you have to do it legally.
Keys: 1.~e ask, of course for a deed restriction in here, in the recommenda_
tion.
MacVicar: Is the legal way to do it to give him RU-5A on the whole thing
and deed restrict the rear for parking only' That's what we want to
do.
Hardie: If you zone it RU-5A it is RU-5A too.
Eastwood: The owner can voluntarily deed restrict the property. Don't
you mean you can't rezone it and at the hearing tell him he ha,s to
put a deed restriction on it.
Hardie: If he is such a volunteer you don't need a deed restriction.
Keys: l·le say voluntary deed restricttion.
Eastwood: How do you propose to do thisZ
Keys: Ask the man. If he wants RU-5A zoning we'll give it to him when
he comes in with a deed restriction to satisfy the City Attorney.
Schechter: No but just to satisfy the City --period.
Hardie: Mike, if you make it a condition like that, all they have to do
is take a copy of the minutes down town and I may as well not appear.
Keys: How do they get these voluntary deed restrictions?
Hardie: You just walk out in the hall and discuss it.
Schechter: How do you spread the word?
Eastwood: At the time the application is made he will undoubtedly ask,
"What's the chance of getting itt" The '3oard. has already implied that
they will do so-and-so off the recor~. If you want to come in with a
deed restriction at the hearing and submit it at the hearing on a re-
quest to rezone the whole pH,ce, you might get away with it.
-26-
Scheohter: Is this billet-doux you gave us going to affect what we are
discussing now?
Eastwood: '~hat little billet-doux?
MacVicar: The one no one else had a chance to read.
Eastwood: This came in this afternoon.
MacVicar: Bevaluation of a Stud~ previously prepa~ed
Schechter: This definitely affects what we are saying right here.
Keys: It sure does.
Eastwood: They dated it on November 9 and delivered it on November 14th.
Keys: They start out by referring to January 1955. This is all about the
Fascel1 property and only the Fascell property. They have \l![1ne three
studies. January 1965. late 1966 and again in February 1967. Basic1y
the 8eco~d study reaffirmed the 1965 report. The 1965 report rec-
ommended apartments with 36 units per acre only if the property-Were
served by sanitary sewers. Since no public sewer system served this
property in February the revised report recommended the lower density
of 23 units per acre. Now they say the Planning ~epartment has been
requested to again review the recommendation of the Facell property.
Field studies have revealed that development in. the area has re-
mained basicly the same. Since the February report --. I'm going to
jump down. Sewer service to the subject site can now be achieved ..
through negotiations between the City and property owners to privately
extend the sewer lines from S' .. I 76th Street and Ren Road south to S"1 80th
Street. So now they're talking since the sewer is available and density
should be increased back up to 36 units per acre or as many as the
site may handle for its size. In fact. off street parking and open
space requirements would limit the units to somewhat less than per-
mitted in Ru-4B. It says they only have so many square foot and they
could get only so many units on it. Therefore, they still recommend
that the zoning go from RU-l to RU_lf -Medi urn 'Jensi ty Apartments on
the Fascell property. '·Je still recommend that there '!xe no change in
the balance of the RU-l zoning and. that the west 135 feet after right-
of-way dedication be zoned for single family homes. He's talking about
the rear.
Paden: Three lots on the rear.
Keys: I can't verify their footage. They talk of 135 net and if they go
150 feet front I don't see where they get that much footage.
Chairman: Mike, what are ~Te being sued for versus their recommendation?
They recommend what density?
Keys: They recommend 36 or the maximum the lot would permit.
Chairman: What are we being sued for? How many?
-27-
Sohechter: They want to go clear in.
Keys: But they still would have to comply with the parking, the set-
backs and the area. The answer to him would be all that is per-
mitted on the size of· the tract. They Can only build 40(.
'Eastwood: Recall, we put through that .D..YIlendment on the Ru-4 zoning
limiting it to 36 units per acre. Before that they could have gone
to ~-Bulter went to 73.
Keys: But here you don't have an acre net.
Eastwood: It is on a proportionate basis. You recall when this case
came up they wanted all the way through. You will recall that at
that hearing I recommended exactly what they put in here. I recommend-
ed that the west 150 feet remain single family. Mr. Gibbs said, "ll1e
must be responsive to the request". everybody went for it and the
Board went unanimous.
MacVicar: Went for what?
Eastwood: Rejection of the application.
Schechter: .There is another factor now. The factor is that we have come
up with the RU-5A zone.
Keys: Let me read that. "The City of South Miami. has recently created
an RU-5A. professional office zone and it has been suggested that
perhaps this would be the more appropriate classification for the Red
Road frontage of this property. The County Planning Department re-
COSlIl';tS6" the usefulness of such a zone. but we cannot justify the
RU-5A classification on any portion of the subject property. ~e would
recommend that this zoning district be placed along Red Road
southwardly from the' business district to the rear property line.of
the homes along the north side of SW 77th Terrace". In other words
the Fascell property. To extend this zone any further south would
place it adjacent to existing single family homes and would provide
impe,tus for further encroachment into the residential community along
SW 77 Terrace." Then he goes on to say. "If this zoning were to be
extended to the subject property. but skipped homes on Sll1 77 Terrace.
it would place those homes in the pOSition of being between two semi-
commerical districts." And yet. they recommend RU-5A to here and they,
recommend apartments to here and say nothing about these residences.
So they themselves are skipping from RU-5A down to Ru-4 and leaving
this alone.
Schechter: May I ask a question here? If we went on to this RU-5A
zoning which is highly·palatable --oh, I don't know the use for
it but it has been palatable to everybody concerned except the Faecell
people. Would this in no way could eventually create --Say after
litigation could the Fascell property then be zoned RU-5A or would
they go to apartments?
-28-
MacVicar: My recollection when this application was being processed
and I forget all the chronology and whether the Board took a vote
on it the night of the hearing or whether we postponed it until the
next Board meeting but I distinctly recall that we discussed con-
tacting the applicant· and telling him we wouln. be in favor of the
RU-l sUrip on 57th court. I.don't know whether we told them we
would go ~u-4 or RU-5A or Ru-4 with limitations or what; but, we
definitely, as you said in your recommendation was to have a RU-l
strip of lots --Right?, and they came back and said they did not
choose to apply on that basis.
Hardie: I believe the point Mr. ER.stwood is making is that at the time
the application first came up you could have gone ahead and rezoned,,:.
a portion of it ~hatever was requested and left the rear portion RU-l.
MacVicar: I see. They did apply for RU-4 originally. Didn't the applica-
tion comp-in for RU-5 originally with a whole bunch of variances?
Keys: No it '>las for RU-I~ with varl.ances. There was one on height limita-
tions.
Eastlofood: ThRt was about two years ago. There waR no height limitation
on RU-l~ until we went through and made that sweeping change in apart-
ment zones. ',hen we did that we reduced the density; we also reduced
the height limitations to J story buildings In Ru-4 zones.
Schechter: Mr. Green 1'forked thf! thing out with yOUo Hank Green the
builder told me he sat with you long hours and it was this plan of
homes on the back part and apartments on the front p9rt. He was at
thf! time being paid to come up with something by the Fascell people
but they would not accept this. They didn't want it. This is why
they went to court.
Eastwood: It Nent to court before the.t. Hhen this thing first came
Jimmy 1)ean use to come in about once a week with a different plan
and flna.lly they realizerl that it was unlikely that thp-y were going
to get anywhere and we ,rere going to defend it in court. Green was
then a partner with the Martin Brothers. Martin Brothers left and
went to the ',est Coast. At this point Green became a principal. He
came in with a plan showing residences on the rear. However, this
affected the price he could afford to pay for thf! property and the
Fascell interests did not see fit to reduce the price so nothtng
happened. Green got out of it at that stage and the Fascell interests
have pursued it since then. If Green had been the principal in this
thing there is no question but what it would have been worked out
1'fi thout the court hearing. It would have been worked out at least 6
months and maybe a year ago, right after the Martins left town.
tS
Schechter: This/what Green said. He said he is \'filling to leave not
only the homes but he was going to give them a buffer. The whole
thing now is that we are concerned with RU-5 and we like it and the
people like it.
-29-
1$ Keys: After all this/a Committee's report and the thing is do you
want to accept or do you want not to accept it, but the reason we
want RU-5A and I think Ed Corley said at a Council meeting or at
one of our meetings that the people down there have been since we
have the RU-5A have asked what are we doing about it. We assumed
that RU-5A would be the thing that would satisfy the people. The
Committee tried to base~hing on what the people would stand for and
that 1s also why we put this voluntary deed restriction in but if the
Thoro property is not used for RU-5A in a year or two years, we don't
want him coming back in asking for something else. So we are only
trying to get a RU-5A as a stopping there. But again the County, of
course, included right straight down to Eliot School taking in homes
that are on 77th Terrace, two homes deep orFRed Road which was al-
most a straight line from right 'down between these two properties.
And, when we got to the Eliot School as we said we felt the neighbors-.
were reconciled to that and Eliot School was happy with their operation
so there was no need to get into a hassle and change it so that's
where ww',stopped, so the Eliot School would remain in there as a
school; The corner lot on Red and SW 80th street would remain RU-I
because you could build a home that would be across from a home and
adjoin a home on the back, and that is the way that it stopped. But,
I say then this report came out from the County.
MacVicar: Mike, before the County report, tell me about this 25 year
deed restriction. ',hat happens at the end of 25 years?
Keys: As I have seen what the County requires; it is a deed restriction
that runs for 25 years unless 75~ of the property owners vote to
abandon it and then it is released, but it is only a period of time.
MacVicar: That there will be enough change at the end of 27 years -.
Keys: No.
Chairman: What happens?
MacVicar: Mike; will be off the Board.
Keys: The mortgage is paid off and maybe at that time corunerical is the
proper thing to do. So then. they could go commerical.
Chairman: The only other note I have made is on that one owner of
property at 80th and Red Road. I think what is going to happen if you
don't include it is that this guy is going to put up 30 bucks and come
in for a variance and if we deny it then he will go to court.
Keysl On what basis? 've didn't come down to him.
Chairman, Yes but we might just as well have.
Keys: The Eliot School is still zoned RD-I. They are in there on a
speCial use permit or a variance or whatever it is.
Chairman: They're just in there.
-30-
Keys: Yes. Well--
Paden: It's still a commer!:.al operation.
MacVicar: Nobody is stewing to get them out.
Chairmam The guy w1ll say, "Look I This is a hafldship", and he will
lick us.
Keys: These people back here, everyone of them built thtr". homes back-
ing up to the school and the school was there.
Schechter: This is true and they Imew it was there and they don't mind it.
Keys: And they built nice homes.
Scheohter: I have spoken to this Mrs. Morin who was here the other night
and she doesn't care.
Chairman: I think this fellow is going to have a real tough time selling
this as a residental lot facing on 80th Street which is a heavily trav-
eled street, facing on Red Road with apartments across the street and
the school to the North.
MacVicar: Then how do you ever hold any zoning line?
Schechter: That's right. If you loosen it up there you are opening
up the whole block.
Chairwan: Here I'm using the street as a buffer rather than the school
as a buffer.
Schechter: Then why don't you for arguments sake say to the resident
over there, its Roland, Morin and one other --I don't know the name
on 57th Court, get rid of them and you've got a whole commerical area,
because this is what will happen.
Eastwood: The best argument you've got is that under a recent ~end
ment to the RU-l zone classification sehools because proper RU-l uses.
MacVicar: After a public hearing.
Eastwood: Where it was in there this long and in an RU-l zone you are
in a much better position in court than you were up until that was
passed.'
Chairman: Roland. all these other people could be raising cMI: ",bout
RU-5A also because they want to have a residential area. Why have
the people suddenly fallen in love with RU-5A bece.use of the court
case?
Schechter: Because its the lesser of two e.tils. Because at 5 0' clock in
the afternoon they are finished and because otherwise they are going
to have, with all the garden apartments, they are going to h~ve garbage
cans. They are going to have the works back there and these people
didn't buy those houses with that in mind.
Chairman: I agree with them and I agree with you; hO;lever, all of a
-31-
(Cont.:) ,sudden you say let's take the whole piece less these two
pieces off. Square it off.
Schechter: But youre not squaring it off. I know I won't convince
you but you won't be ,squaring it off. lvhat you're doing is opening
up a whole other street.
Keys: You see, you have a house across from this Wilder lot facing on
80th Street. If you don't get a house there or if you make it some-
thing else then h~ls got the same right. Where do you stop? That's
why we thought the logical place to stop would be the Eliot School.
MacVicar: You're back to the philosophy of changing zoning at the back
of a lot or changing' on a street.'
Chairman: It is going to be two more years before they get around to
Shaw Nursery.
Schechter: Then you can't vote.
Keys: Mr. Hardie said when we give reports they have to fish out the
legal and illegal things and this and that but at least we can give them
something to work on. I think that is what we have done here. If we
can't restrict this 86 feet back here for parking --l~ell --do some-
thing else. If this went RU-5A our contention was that this 86 feet
back here behind Fossey's and the Shore Building and l1artin's and all--
They could come in and ask for RlT-5A shuffling parking it is quite
possible they could extend their building or build and you have re-
sidential stop here. '.Jhere we have resdential here. Ive were, trying
to make 1 t conform and thought ~Ie already had andmake it run straight
down. You never liked my crooked lines over there.
MacVicar: I move the report be adopted and F-o'Rwarded to the City Council.
Schechter: I second it.
Chairman: Anybody who doesn't like that?
MacVicar: Then George can wrestle with 1-t.
Schechter: But nO~1 actually it means virtually nL'thing.
MacVicar: May I be excused 11r. Chairman? I have to run.
Chairman: He don't need a quorum now.
Eastwood: Let me tell you what has happened now. I have not been directed
by this Board to do so but in the interests of expediting as much as
possible, I have advertised this area, the recommended area of Mr.
Keys, for rezoning to RU-5A, for the next hearing of this Board.
Schechter: ~he people in this ar~a felt, as you know, feel extremely
upset about it. They took it to the Board of the Homeowners and the
Homeowners Board --You will receive a letter or Council will feeling
too that too much time has elapsed that this thing hadn't been done
before.
-32-
Eastwood: This Board did nothing to expedite it actually.
Schechter: ',rell, this "9oard wasn't given it. Hait a minute. This
Board got it after it had been sitting for about 4 weeks.
Keys: '-Ie had our report ready from one meeting to the next.
Schechter: Yes sir.
Eastwood: I've got the dates on it.
Keys: One meeting we were instructed to go, the next meeting we had
this report.
Eastwood: All I'm saying nOl'T is although I have not been instructed by
this Board to do so I have advertised this for the next meeting be-
fore you. If I had waited until tonil!;ht to get direction from you
we l'TOuld have been e. month from now instead ofbro weeks.
Keys: Well, there has to be a public hearing.
Eastwood: I am just informinl!; you that I acted without your directing
me t.o do so, just in the interest of savinI!; hlo weeks.
Schechter: You don't really need it from us though. The one that counts
is the Council and you are within your rights.
t<:astl'1ood: ',lhere a study is involved. I can't just so out and choose
part of the City and say rezone it. I have to base it on something.
All you have done now is accept the study. You still have not se.id
we agree Nith the study. HONever, I'm advertising this with a study
you haven't even approved of yet and I'm going to call this to your
attention now. Because you see the last time Ne brought this thing
in --Remember I made e.n application on the Martin Property back 3
months ago and when it came before you --because there were some
people who objected to it --and Nhen it came before the Council they
turned it down and you all turned it dmm. And, it was asked, ""Thy
did you advertise this?" This time I'm telling you that I did it
because I'm trying to save time. This thing on the Martin case, if
you all had approved the application that I made it Nould have solved
things all the way through. And the thing Nould have gone through
prior to the case going to court but you all turned it down.
Chairman: One of the reasons we didn't approve it, in fact one of the
big reasons, in my opinion we didn't approve it, was because the
residents in the area were up in arms. They absolutely didn't we.nt
any part of it and they were against it. Later the Council said 1'Te've
got to do something with thi8 area so they said, "Here is a club. \-Ie
are going to propose rezoning that strip." Hhat I saw here last ~Teek __
The public took that club, the Council's club, and hit them right back
over the head with their own club so why are we here --sure --He've
all drug our feet but so has the-public because they absolutely did
not want anything but RU-l.
-33-
Schechter: Wait a minute. This is not so. '''hen you came in --I
disagree again. !,"hen Mr. Eastwood on that Martin request --When
they came in originally for that, that was for apartments. Those
people did not want apartments and the Mayor held out this manna
from Heaven -.:. RU-5A ~-and everybody said, "Good. This will stop
the apartments and it won't --we won't have the garbage that goes
with it. Great." Then there was a period of about 4 weeks and it
just sat, and if you look back in your notes you will see it. Then
we started moving on it. .
Eastwood: The ordinance had to be drafted.
Chairman& I admit we have all drug our feet but what upset me the, other
night was these people they were partially right because the thing
didn't move as quickly as it might have --He're all real smart now
because we are looking back --These people took the club that the
Council whittled --its own club --and tired to beat them to death
with their own club. In my personal opinion, and I was involved as
a member of the Pla.nning Board, I don't think there was a just
criticism.
Schechter: I don't think they criticized our Board.
Eastwood: I could not have asked for a zone classification that did
not exist. The RU-5A zone classification has only existed a couple
of weeks. The only thing I could advertise it for was a classification
that did exist and interestingly enough the ~letropoli tan Dade County
Planning 1)epartment has come to the conclusion that is what it should
have been zoned. ",fhether we have an RU-5,\ or not, they say --"[hat
they are saying in effect is that it is not proper to put office
buildings across the street from apartments. From a zoning standpoint
the proper thing should be apartments. 1'11 admit it would probably
be less of a burden to the people in the neighborhood to have RU-5A.
Paden: That isn't very good logic though, is i.t?
Eastwood: It is good logic to the effect that you can't advertise
something that does not exist.
Paden: I'm talking about r1etro contending that they shouldn't hEl.Ve
RU-5A across the street from apartments. I think that is very poor
logic.
Eastwood: But I did want you to be aware that I have advertised this
and you all have not condoned it.
Keys: 'RaBicly l~e l.ere a.sked, of course, to revise the ,~hole Overa.ll
Plan. 'Ne then said because of urgency we took this area first. Now
this is our report on the area so stated south of Sunset. The next
area l~ould have been from Sunset north up to 64th in that area but
read where that the County is making studies, Urban li!enewal is making
studies, etc. so I think at this point the Committee should finalize.
This is our report and until such time as the Urban Renewal or HUT)
or the County make their report on the north side we ~lill not make
a study. I don't think there h any urgency on Bird ROad that I am
aware of.
-34-
Eastwood: Could I ask a question in conjunction with that? 1,J'hat is this
map?
Keys: '.Jhat is it? It 1s a copy that we made at the time we made the
Overall Plan.
Eastwood: . That is not the Overall Plann that you all recommended.
Keys: This one?
Ea.stwood: Because that has about 60 acres of apartments on it that were
not on the overall plan as approved.
Keys: '-Ie only used it to show the area that this study covers.
Eastwood: This shows the whole ~egro area including the single family
as being apartments.
Keys: This is only a 1'1or'-{ sheet. This is not the on.e that you have
back there --The official one. This is only a work sheet that 1~e
had. I only had it up there to sho!>l this one little strip.
Chairman: Yout'te telling us W'1B.t n01~? You are gOing to skip what area?
Keys: The arc a from Miller Road down to US Jil, from P.ed Road to the
County, until we get reports from Metro --the study theY're making
and what they decide to do about Urban Renewal.
ChairmanI Cloes that sound reB.sonable to put a hold on that?
Eastwood: By all means because they are going to have their own planners
in here on that. The apartment house zoning does not match at all
with what the people in that area want.
Chairman: Then l~e' re agreed to hold that one.
Eastwood: Hhat about the thing up on Bird Road? You have a study going
on that?
Keys: That ~Ias the next thing then. I have not studied it and the
Committee hasn't studied the Bird Road area to see if there is any-
thing necessary. ,Ie will 4ecide on that --or froD Miller,on up --
and make a report pro or con for the next meeting.
Chairman: All right. Let's go on to Town 'louses.
-35-
Item 3 -Town Houses
Chairman: Steve,have we gotten anything from any other city?
Masson: I've, got the Hialeah Ordinance and North Miami's. Frankly,
they aren't even worth looking at.
Chairman: \~e got anything from out of town at all? ' The suggestion
that I would like to make and then we can take it from there, again
I would like to try to get as many others as we can, and rather than
each of us get a copy,1f we could get Steve to digest it an~ give us
the mee,t of that. --If we could also have Steve digest the one that
we wrote at the time lore had the RU-5 study.
Masson: Mr. Shaw,I don't have any record of any Town House Ordinance
being written.
Chairman: I'll give you a copy then. Then what I personally like to
see because I don't :know building enough to comment in detail on the
Town House Ordinance, I'd like to get a written opinion from hro or
more tOl'1n house builders on the ordinance Metro has now drafted and
I would also like to get an opinion from the Mayor since he)is a
builder in effect and probably has had some experience with it if
not in the middle of one of these projects now. Now we can discuss
any portions of this the Board might want to but I catch those 4
points to have them available for next meeting. It would help me
because I just don't understand building that well.
Schechter: I would like to also get an opinion from a few of our archi-
tects in the community who understand and one man whose opinion I'd
value tremendously is Bob Borema. He has been very liberal with his
time whenever we have asked him questions. I feel these pe0ple know
a lot about town houses. They can tell us a lot about them'.and where
they should be used. This is the kind of opinion that I would also
like to see included besides builders.
Chairman: I'll make that point.
Keys: I'm just going to ask, Mrs. Schechter brought it out, where do
town houses apply? In what? Do they fit in between apartments and
RU-l or do you come down from commerical to a higher density down to
a lower density and on down? So a town house is, of course, a
What do th'ey get? Something like 13, 14 or 15 units per acre.
Eastwood: Town Housing is not a very specific term. It has been used
by very different types of developers. If you go to ryallas or some
of the places around there they use "Town Houses" to cover "cluster
development".' A, builder might take a hundred acres and put 3 or 4
units of 16 or 18 or 20 apartments each, maybe less, build a golf
course, tennis courts, all kind of things like that. They call them
"Town Houses" and sell them for lots of money. On the other hand,
if you go up into Hialee.h and ,l?articularily up to North Miami where
they built some on a canal up there, you'll find that theY're very
much like the row houses they use to have in Baltimore and~it 1s
-36-
(Cont.) just a high density type of development. Now the County's
ordinance is also along those lines. The real question is, "Are
you going to use this, for redevelopment or are you going to use it
for larger tracts in which you want to give people a chance to have
all of their entertainment and recreation facilities grouped
together. They are two entirely different ideas.' In the city of
Hialeah for instance they have gotten away with this low density
by putting them on rock pits andsometimes there is very little
shoulder on the rock pit. It is all water and the water area is
not particularly suitable for recreation. So first of all you
are going to have to decide what you want to do with this new
classification before you can develop any regulations. The only
real need I see for it now is in the redevelopment of the Negro
area. Most of those people desire to keep home ownership and the
only way you can improve the quality of living in that area I
believe, is to do it with some type of row house development with
the recreation areas, lawn, things of that kind be concentrated
in one area and used by everyone. We have a development up in
Orlando and if any of you get up there between now and the time
this is passed, I suggest you look at it. In the center of the
Orlando Negro area there is a place called Parramore Village.
Parramore Village did not get any government help. It is a pri-
vate development. When you look at what is around it, and the area
that Parramore village is and it was worse than what is around it
you see what can be accomplished by this type of development. I
have the ordinance that was used to develop Parramore Village, a
set of building plans of the structure, and several pictures that
were taken in the area.
Paden: What's the name of that place?
Eastwood: (Spelling out) "P-A-R-R-A-M-O-R-E V-I-L-L-A-G-E."
Paden: I'm glad you spelled it for me.
Keys: Steve should write up there and get Orlando's Code.
Eastwood: I've got it, but they don't call them town houses.
Schechter: What do they call them?
Eastwood: They don't call them anything. They just call them
Parramore Village.
Keys: What zoning classification would it go in?
Eastwood: Let's say they call it XYZ classification. I don't recall
the exact designation but it is just a combination of letters.
This is the best answer I have seen to redevelopment of concentrated
Negro area, and this is the biggest problem we have in this town.
-37-
(cont.) We can talk about. We can talk about a lot of things
but the only scab between Perrine and Coconut Grove is this little
50 acre Negro area that we have. A quarter of a mile to the west
we've got $50,00 home,s, you've got the University of Miami to the
East, you've got good housing to the North and there will proba-
bly be the Expressway to the South. Removal of jus.t this one little
area or making something good out of it will result in tremendous
benefit to both the white and Negro people in the area.
Hardie: Aren't those town houses over there now?
Eastwood: They would certainly meet the definition of town houses.
You can make town houses match most anything. I've got an Urban
League publication on town houses that must have 800 pages and
you can find almost any kind of development you want in that book.
Schechter: There is the other kind of town house. I know one of
the builders and every time he does it, it gets me quite upset
because I'd like to see it go more residential than that. He
has that strip between Ludlum and 65th Avenue -that Davis
Nursery -and his plan is to have some very exclusive townhouses
with a private road running through it. My only fear about town
houses is that they are great for a few years, but what happens?
How old is Parramore Village? Has it been there long enough to
see that it isn't going to be a slum?
Eastwood: It has been there only two or three years, but it is not
likely to turn into a slum because they have kept all public
area under a maintenance contract in which everyone pays in main-
tenance on the given areas at the same time he pays his rent and
the rate structure us amazingly low. Im sorry the payment struc-
ture is low. As a result, Parramore village -if you happen to
get up there, you won't have to be told when you reach there.
It is like when you hit Lake Mead out 'in the middle of the desert
when you come over that road to Boulder and all of a sudden you
look down at Boulder Dam with Lake Mead in the back of it.
Schechter: You said that it was privately financed?
Eastwood: H & M Construction.
Shaw: Is there anything else you want to do with this tonight?
Eastwood: This is something you should take you time on.
Chairman: steve, could you get those various testimonials. from
those fellows and builders and the Mayor?
-38-
Eastwood: All your builders will say the regulations are alright
except they are too stringent.
Chairman:
Eastwood:
they are
tectural
opinion.
I want to know why they are too stringent.
They'll say youcan't make money. The architects will say
alright, but they have not devoted enough to good archi-
features. But something will be gained by getting their
Shaw: Then if we could have a consensus of opinion on Mike's
question, "Where do we put them?" Then let's do this next meeting.
Masson: You're going to have about 6 hearings next meeting.
Schechter: Some people feel they should go just in high density
areas. Now they are becoming a feature for a family that does
not want the responsibility of a home, want a smaller kind of
thing for about $15,000 or ~16,000.
Eastwood: You probably need two ordinances then, one that falls
under the cluster program and one that falls under the high
density redevelopment program.
Paden: On the basis of this 1800 square feet per unit, you get some'-
thing like 20 or more units to the acre. That is a high density.
Keys: That's too many. You can build apartments and have that.
Paden: This is the same thing except you build the separate units
to give the benefit of the homestead exemption, otherwise, you
save onlinsurance a little bit because of the double wall.
Schechter: Some have their own pools though. I'm thinking not of
the -
Paden: There can be a patio area. It can be on the roof, or at
least part of it can, they only get 500 square feet of patio
with each one or 750 building space in each unit which is about
the size of a one bedroom or two bedroom apartment.
Eastwood: They have them in Texas and California where it takes
$100,000 to get in.
Keys: This one in Boston, what I was going to say, they go out to
the old part of town where there is a house sitting on two acres
or three acres and they merely wall it, restrict it, put some
-39-
(Cont. )
houses.
can fit.
curved streets in and guild $100,000 individual town
But it doesn't have to have 5 acres, it is what they
Paden: Town houses can be very nice, but not this.
Keys: In other words, down on North Kendall Drive, -across from the
church -spot zoning.
Hardie: No, that's next door to me. I don't want it.
Paden: I think between Snapper Creek and Kendall Drive would be a
good place for that.
Keys: Now the county, I see in some of their zoning, they have
along south of North Kendall and west of 77 Avenue, they have
gone from apartments to town houses. That is just in the area
south of North Kendall Drive. They went from apartments to
town houses and then of course, you've got half acre estates
from that far. Where do they fit in?
Eastwood: Before you all adjourn, could I shoot a quick one at
you? Metropolitan Dade County has an application for a day nur-
sery on the north side of Kendall Drive at 62 Avenue.
Paden: 62nd Avenue?
Eastwood: Yes, sir.
Keys: They have a what now?
Paden: Is that where Florida Power and Light wanted to put that
transformer station?
Eastwood: Yes, it is right there. It is the place where you had
a request for a big apartment complex. The next time they
cam back, they wanted to put in a power station.
Paden: That is where power line comes across the canal.
Chairman: But this would be across the street from South Miami,
right?
Eastwood: Do we want to protest it or not? We have a single family
residential right next to it.
-40-
Schechter: Yes, protest it.
Keys: I'm not against it.
Eastwood: What is the feeling of the Board?
paden: Nursery school? Is this a day nursery?
Keys: Where do we allow them in our zoning now?
chairman: How does that differ from the school we have down at
Beth-Am?
Eastwood: One is private and one is public.
paden: One is a church school and one is a commercial proposition.
Schechter: The church schools usually have a very nice scene and
the private aren't nearly as nice.
Eastwood: One makes money and the other doesn't.
Schechter: I happen to know the difference. I am interested in
day schools, etc., and if you are going to have something like
this, like we have at the Cocoplum, that's one thing, but if
you are going to have something like some of these other people
put together, it could be a real setback to us.
Eastwood: I've got two people who say they don't care and one
who says they do. How about you, Mr. Paden?
Paden: I don't think that is a good location, on the other hand,
I thought it was a good location for the power station.
Schechter: I do,too.
Paden:
it
it
But that power station doesn't make any noise and
screened it doesn't even look like one. I wouldn't
unless the property owners around there fight it.
with
fight
Eastwood: Then I have three people who say it is all right and
I won't write a letter.
REMARKS
Schechter: I have a remark. I would like this for the record,
please. Mr. Eastwood, have you heard anything about our Board
being resolved? Are we going to be fading away into the night?
This came back to me apparently from a Council person that said this
-41-
new Community Improvement or Community Development Board is
going to replace us. That we are finished and I wondered
what the word is at this point.
Eastwood: I have no idea how rumors of this type start.
Schechter: This is not a rumor. This is an actuality.
Eastwood: It is an actuality? That it is going to replace this
Board?
Schechter: The actuality was that the statement was made that we
are finished.
Eastwood: I don't know how statements like these are made. Never
at any time has the Board considered it -has the Council
considered it. And, not only that, the jurisdictions of the
Boards are not the same just by reading the Ordinance.
Schechter: Well, this had been my interpretation when the Ordinance
for the other had come up but that was my one comment. I'd like
an answer.
Eastwood: No. No. All I can say is that I've never heard anything
like this and I know it is not the intent.
Schechter: Again, I would like to emphasize very strongly that
whatever we say here as comments, because we are on an advisory
board that they -even though it would make notes copious -
become copious, and even though it might make a ]!. t:U.e bit wordy
reading, that I feel that as an advisory board that whatever is
said here ought to go on to our Council and my reason for this
is reinforced. Last week-end when I had a call from one of the
Council people, after reading the notes of our meeting, and ask-
ing me numerous questions which could have b.een a.nswered had he
known what had come up, and I just feel that maybe if they knew
what our thinking was and it was a more rather informal kind of
discussion, rather than formal minutes, so that because we are
an advisory board, that this should be put into effect. I don't
say this -I think as far as I am concerned I think our Secretary's
note taking should not be impugned, but I just feel that we are
not getting to them when I have to get a call asking me what hap-
pened and why there is a vote this way or why was it the other
way.
Eastwood: What kind of questions, Mrs. Schechter?
-42-
Schechter: Questions pertaining to these meetings.
Eastwood: On what particular subject?
Schechter: Actually it involved the Balough -
Paden: Forty feet up on Sunset?
Schechter: Yes.
Keys: You mean that they wanted to know why we approved it?
Schechter: The overwhelming vote and what had transpired to cause
it.
Keys: I'd like to ask them the same thing. Why didn't they approve
it?
Schechter: My feeling was and then I had said, "Well, a gentleman
who was one of the merchants had gotten up -well, they weren't
aware of all this. I feel we as an advisory board -that what we
say should be getting in and they should know these things.
Keys : That's been the problem and that's why we have a secretary ,
and of course, as Herb says, you can't get the record in accor-
dance and Shirley takes it down and yet as Herb said, she can't
put every word down because it's garbled, but we have always had
the problem that we could never get to the Council the reason
that we did or did not do certain things. I see on that Sunset
thing, I don't know why there would have been any question, I
mean that the discretion that we had certainly should have been
in the minutes to them.
Schechter: Well, it was my feeling and I have expressed it before
that perhaps as an advisory board, that whatever, we say should
go in pretty much verbatim for their perusal.
Masson: May I make a comment?
Schechter: Yes, sir.
Masson: That would be fine if you didn't have three of you
talking at one time. You get cross-table conversations and the
mike picks everything up. Most of the time it is virtually
impossible not only to figure out who is talking, but if the
conversation is meaningful. If we each took our turn as a
speaker in order not to override the other guy, is saying there
would be no problem.
-43-
Eastwood: I have had a little bit of experience with minutes of
this kind because if you recall Dade County uses a verbatim
court reporter and fora meeting of this length, we could figure
on court reporter minutes costing somewhere in the neighborhood
of $100. I have also had the duty many :times, when we got
ready to go to court, of having to go back through those minutes
and try to make out what was decided and it is an extremely
difficult thing because you'd be surprised how many things you
can leave hanging. The only way we can go to what you are
speaking of is to go to a court reporter system. This is alright
with me, except that I haven't got it budgeted.
Schechter: But we are budgeted for an extra amount for a secretary
for these proceedings, are we not?
Eastwood: Yes.
Schechter: And we do have a tape recorder helping with the notes.
Eastwood: But it is only -When it came time to get a secretary
for this Board, I had an awful job be'Cause nobody would volun-
teer. They'd say, "I don't even know what they're saying
because they're talking all the time -and everybody is talking
and sometimes the meetings last 3 hours. You mean, I am going
to take my evening, drive down to the City Hall, listen for
3 hours, go back and listen to that tape -because you can't
listen to the tape 3 hours because if you talk for an hour on the
tape, it takes at least 2 to 3 to read it, listen to it -and
type that thing out for $15?" I don't think I can get that type
of recording for you for the kind of money you're paying.
Chairman: That would be the graphic solution. I have felt per-
haps the reporting hasn't been to my liking and I have had a
note to myself for almost 3 months now that when I get what I
feel is a good typical Planning Board 'meeting, I'm to take two
hours and listen to the tape and write what I think should have
been reported and perhaps Mrs. Schechter could do it and if any-
one else is interested in taking his time. Then let's compare
and see, because everyone of these reports is strictly a matter
of judgement. My judgement of what should be reported would
be entirely different from the next person's.
Eastwood: Just for the heck of it, why don't you all take the
tape we have tonight and come up -now remember you haven't
had anybody from the public which makes this one easy.
<, -44-
Schechter: wait. I have a suggestion that I think -I don't think
it is a better one, but I think it ought to precede yours. Why
don't we ask the Council if they're getting what we're trying to
impart to them -if there is communicatIon? If they say, "Sure,
we got it through. This is fine. We don't need any more'~ Then
my point is well taken, but the fact that I did have a call and
all these questions came up, again reinforced my thinking. Now
I think it is all well to sit and listen to a tape. I know it
is tedious. Perhaps we ought to raise the amount we pay for this.
We certainly have it in other areas, but I think the Council, if
they are using us as an advisory board and as you say they are
relying on us, then they certainly ought to know waht Is being
said.
Eastwood: Any time you go to less than a verbatim report you are
going strictly on opinion. I am sure there would be no prob-
lem in gLvLng you exactly the kind of report you want provided
the Secretary knew the detail in which you want the report.
Schechter: My main query at one point was during remarks. I
felt that all of our remarks should be presented, but after
having this other comment, I felt that perhaps the sholw thing
ought to be presented. Because, after all isn't the purpose
of notes to them to note to them what I thinking is and what went
on.
Eastwood: In order to get some indication of what you all feel
is a proper set of notes, I think it would be a very desirable
thing if you would write up a set of minutes of tonight because
tonight is an easy meeting. There are no people coming up from
the outside, there is no case where you have to get people's
names and addresses and things of that kind. I think it would
be very helpful to know what your thinking is.
Chairman: Well, this would be a solution'. Further, based on that
we should make a decision on whether we should hold these discus-
sion in a very formal manner or in the informal manner that we
do where people are talking back and forth which we're getting
more meat -we're covering more ground in allotted time by infor-
mality but. that ranges. We have tried to keep it formal during the
public session, but when we go into executive session it it is
kind of an open debate I think it's good. I'd like to keep it
that way, but if we find that does confuse the reporting and parti-
cularly, if we find after we submit our judgement on how it
should be reported that we should have more accurate reporting,
then we might have to go back to formality. If ¥ou so indicate,
we will.
"
-45-
Paden: Nothing other than a comment on this. I have served on
boards for quite a long while and I know that a verbatim record
is a bunch of incoherent mishmash. It takes a long time to get
any sense out of it. In other words, probably 75% of what is
recorded verbatim is ~bsolutely useless afterwards, yet you can't
use it in court unless there is a verbatim record. I record
I don't think would justify that sort of thing and should be
edited. There is a probability that we are not getting into our
record some of the things we should but I think the members of the
Board are primarily responsible for that. In connection with a
vote, I occassionally do it myself and I think some of the others
do, when you vote you state a reason why you voted the way you
did because you think it is important perhaps for the Council to
know that angle. That should be recorded. In the comments, I
think the speaker should indicate whether or not he wants his
comments recorded. Ordinarily, I am inclined to agree with Mr.
Shaw, it is better to keep the thing informal than to record it
but if you are going to record it or take it on a tape and be
able to read the tape later, then we have got to have a stricter
discipline regarding the conduct of the meeting and see that only
one person talks at a time, that one asks for the floor and the
Chairman grant it to him by name so that whoever listens to the
tape knows who is talking. I have nothing further.
Keys: No remarks.
Chairman: We have this FLorida Planning and Zoning
coming up. Convention coming up on December 6.
you check what the registration fee is.
Masson: $25.00.
Association
Steve, could
Chairman: But only if you want to take in a piece of it. For
example, there will be some items that each of us can take in-
$25.00 won't cover the whole Board wiLL it?
Masson: No, it is $25.00 per delegate.
Chairman:
Tuesday
to me -
Well, what I would like to know, if I can go in on a
afternoon because that particular topic is of interest
what will it cost the city?
Masson: $25.00.
Paden: You still have to pay the full registration fee for anybody
who goes? They don't have any open meetings. I notice a couple
of events in there that say "Open" but I think they were cocktail
parties or something.
... '" -46-
Masson: When you sign up, they give you a badge and that is your
pass to all activities.
paden: In their schedule, there are two or three items marked "Open"
which would indicate to me that anybody could attend, but I don't
think they are business sessions.
Eastwood: And drink free booze?
chairman: The free booze is paid for by the $25.00.
paden? It may be a dinner which you have to pay for anyway.
Schechter: I believe the cover letter says something about the
delegates should pay half and the City should pay half.
paden: I wouldn't go that far just for free booze anyway.
chairman: There are portions of this program, if I were not a
delegate, there are portions I would like to look into, but if it
is going to cost 25 bucks, I would let it go.
Eastwood: It has always been the policy of the City to pay the
entire registration.
paden: Probably two City officials and maybe our representative
of the Board and come back and give us a report on what happened.
Because I wouldn't want the City to pay $25 to go over there and
listen to a lecture. I'm not going to vote for it.
Schechter: We could switch the badge.
Chairman: Sure we could, but it is dishonest and I don't know
whether we would want to do this on the city level. I'd sneak
into a football game, but if I wore the city colors I'd have
to pay my way at the gate.
Schechter: If the person would pay their own way, then there is
no problem.
chairman: No problem at all. Is the city going to pay one dele-
gate or two? Does anyone feel they would like to go to all the
sessions?
Eastwood. In the past, whenever a person went to a convention,
if they all went or if one went, we paid the registration fee and
that will continue to be the policy because this is the best chance
you ever get to learn. All of our administrative boards take
the opportunity to learn when they get the chance.
-47-
Chairman: That's great. I went to the one in el.oar@.krand it was real
and it was real good.
Eastwood: The only remark I've got is that in these minutes I have -
before I became City Manager, it was my duty to make up these minutes
and I'll tell you, you never know what you are, up against until
you have tried a set, and after you have tried a set of them let
me know, because it is easier to write a volumino'us set of notes
than it is a short set and you have got to be very careful that
you don't put something that is going to cause George to lose
a law suit a little bit later. If there is such material around
you, let the opposing attorney find it. Don't just set it out in
a dish for him to feast on. That's all I've got.
MINUTES OF THE REGUlAR MEETING
SOUTH MIAMI PiANNING BOARD
NOVEMBER 28, 1967
Chairman Shaw caiied the meeting to order at 8:00 P.M. and the Pledge of
Allegiance was given.
Present: J. C. Shaw, Chairman
Myron Keys, Vice Chairman
James Bowman
Absent:
Carl Paden
Joyce Schechter
James Ferguson
D. K. MacVicar
Zoning Director Eastwood and Public Works Director Masson were a180 in attendance.
Mr. Paden made a motion that the minutes of November 14, 1967 be approved as
individually read. Mr. Keys seconded the motion.
***
Hearing: #67-41 William Burton
Request: Variance of rear setback requirements to permit a second story addition
to an existing building with no rear setback (15 ft. required) and variance of
off-street parking requirements to permit three parking spaces instead of four
as required.
Subject Property: Lots 51,52 (less E. 50') W. A. Larkins, PB 3/198
Location: 7211 SW 58 Avenue
Zoning Director's Recommendation: The applicant presently owns a parcel of
property with 106.66' frontage and a depth of 110 feet. Only a small portion
of the property is developed or is proposed for development at this time. As
he has sufficient area to meet off-street parking requirements, he cannot show
hardship. Denial is recommended. Should the applicant feel that an unusual
hardship exists at the time of further development, it is suggested that appli-
cation be made at that time.
Mr. William Burton, 7221 SW 58 Avenue, appeared for the application. He stated
that the property in question has frontage of 107' on 58 Avenue and the south
28' is leased to the Bank of South Miami as access to their drive-in tellers.
He intends to build a 1200 sq. ft. second story over the existing building. There
remains a 40 ft. strip in the center of the property which has a frame residential
building on it at present. He wishes to remove the building and sell the 40 x 110'
site. There is enough parking space at present for three cars. There is a city
owned parking lot acroSS the street which is never full, therefore if it were
ever necessary to have more parking this would be available. If this variance foc
off-street is not granted, it will leave him with a piece of proPerty which
would be hard to sell since the person buying would then have to come in for a
variance. Mr. Paden asked if this variance would require backing out into the
street. Mr. Burton stated that it probably would.
Mr. Paden made a matian to. recammend to. the City Cauncil that the variance an
rear setback be appraved, and the variance an aff-street parking be denied.
Mrs. Schechter seco.nded the matian.
Mr. Paden stated that he feels the Baard shauld nat apprave aff-street parking
when it requires backing into. the street.
The quest ian was called and the vate palled. All members present vated YES.
Palled: Yes -5 No. -0
Hearing: #67-42 Stevens Market, Acalite Sign Ca., Agents
Request: Variance to. permit additian to. a nancanfo.rming detached sign with an
overall height af 32 ft. (21 ft. maximum permitted) and no. frant setback (20 ft.
required)
Subject Praperty: Part af Tract 1, Fernwaad, PB 35/72
Lacatian: 6600 Red Raad
Zaning Director's Recommendation: There is an existing sign with an overall
height of 32 ft. This is the anly point-of-sale advertising of business
development on approximately 9 acres of commercial property. Applicant's
alternative would be to install an additianal sign ar add requested square foot-
age to the existing sign. The latter solution is desirable. Appraval recommended.
Mr. C. L. Diffenderfer, agent for Acolite Sign Campany, appeared far the appli-
cation. He stated that Stevens Market, which has recently been taken over by
Grand Union was asking for this variance. They have recently taken over the
adjoining store and need this sign for identification purposes. They feel that
this is the best asnwer to a difficult problem. The existing sign has been up
since 1955, and they wish to utilize as much of the existing sign as possible.
The maximum height of the panel will be approximately 25 ft. If they were to
attach the detached sign to the bottom of the existing panel they would not be
able to meet the Building Code requirement of 9 ft. vertical clearance. The
company has put a lot of money into up-grading this development and would ap-
preciate any halp given to them in regard to this problem. They wish to avoid a
series of small identification signs.
Mr. Keys mada motion to recommend to City C0uncil that the application be approved.
Mr. Bowman seconded the motion.
The question was called and the vote polled. All members present voted YES.
Polled: Yes -5 No -0
***
Hearing: #67-43 City of South Miami
Request: Change of zone classification from RU-l to RU-5A for the following
parcels:
-2-
1, West 137.5 ft. of Tract 4, Larkins Forest, PB 33/44
2, N~ of NEt of SEk of NEt less W. 374 ft. thereof, Sec. 36-54-40
3, East 155.30 feet of Lot 1, Block 1, Fairglade Park, PB 45/80
4. East 150.30 feet of Lot 1, Block 4, Fiarglade Park, PB 45/80
Change of zone classification from RU-lA to RU-5A for the following:
5. E~ of N~ of SEk of SEk of NEt less W. 140 ft. thereof, Section 36-54-40
Zoning Director's Recommendation: This request is in accordance with committee
recommendation to the Board, except for the treatment of the N~ of the NEt
of SEk of NEt, less the W, 374' thereof, Section 36-54-40. E. 286' of the Thoro
property, This includes the Red Road R/W). Should this property be rezoned,
it will be impossible to restrict the W. 86' to parking only. Therefore, it is
recommended that only the E, 150' plus R/w, be rezoned, It is recommended that
the remainder of the property in the application be rezoned in accordance with
the request.
Bette Kowalchuk, 7510 SW 57 Court, asked that the application be explained.
Zoning Director Eastwood explained that the City had a problem area along the
west side of Red Road. This arose from the fact that the east side of Red Road
was zoned and developed for apartment use and the west side of Red Road was
zoned single family residential, It was desirable that a buffer area be placed
along the west side of Red Road to protect residential area to the west. A
recent court case on one of the parcels will make some kind of determination
mandatory. The matter had been referred to a committee by the Planning Board
and this hearing was prepared in accordance with the recommendation of that
committee.
Mr. Robert Rutledge, 7321 SW 57 Court, representing Mr. Wilder, who owns the
property at the SW corner of SW 80 Street and 57 Avenue, appeared objecting only
to the stopping of RU-5A zoning at Eliot School. This would leave his client
with the only RU-l zoned lot on Red Road. He stated he felt that the Board
should not go to the middle of a block and stop. The Board should go to the
end of the block. He was not opposed to the application. He asked that his
client receive the same classification as everyone else, Everybody along Red
Road should have the same RU-5A classification.
Mr. Edward Stys, 5712 SW 77 Terrace, asked what differenc"e there is between
RU-4 and RU-5A. Could apartments be built in RU-5A7 Zoning Director Eastwood
informed him that apartments were not allowed in RU-5A.
Mr, Keys made a motion to recommend to the City Council that the application be
approved. Mrs. Schechter seconded the motion.
Mr. Paden questioned whether this was the proper time to act on this property,
He called attention to the present court case on the Fascell property and to
the restudy of the area by the Metropolitan Dade County Zoning Department.
The question was called and vote polled, All members present voted YES.
Polled: Yes -5 No -0
***
-3-
Hearing: #67-44 City of South Miami
Request: Change of zone classification from C-l to C-2
Subject Property: Lots 1 thru 6 and 21 thru 25, Block 12 Townsite of Larkins, PB2/l05
Lots 1 thru 6 and 21 thru 25, Block 15, Townsite of Larkins, PB 2/105
Location: West side of SW 59 Place between SE 68 and 70 Streets
Zoning Director's Recommendation: The proposed change is in accordance with
recommendations previously made to this Board as a provision for a buffer
between restricted business zoning west of SW 59 Place and liberal zoning east
of SW 59 Place. Approval recommended.
Zoning Director Eastwood explained there had been an application two hearings
ago for a new wholesale auto parts at the NW corner of 59 Place and 69 Street.
At that time it was the consensus of the Board that some type of buffer should
be placed between the restricted business zoning on the west side of 59 Place
and the liberal business to the east. The purpose of this hearing was to
determine the acceptability of such a solution.
The Chairman stated there were two letters of objection in the file, Mrs. Betsy
Arrington, 14401 SW 82 Avenue and Florence H. Pankin, 5991 SW 69 Street.
The following people appeared in objection to the application;
Mrs. Betsy Arrington, 14401 SW 82 Avenue. She stated that she owns an apartment
building behind the South Miami Federal Savings and Loan Building. She felt the
C-2 zoning was not consistent with the way South Miami is growing. She has
invested money in her property and would consider building a professional building
if the zoning did not change.
Mr. H. L. Dawson, 5995 SW 71 Street, stated he owned two lots on 71 Street. He
could not see where down-grading would help the area, He wishes to construct
a well designed two story office building but would be reluctant to do so if
these changes were put through.
Ron Holcomb, 5952 SW 70 Street, who owns property jointly with Mr. Braden, stated
they were opposed to the C-2 buffer in this immediate area.
Mrs. Schechter inquired of the Zoning Director as to the probable effect on
development of the proposed post office. Zoning Director replied that the
city had received notice that afternoon that the Post Master General was exercising
the option on the proposed post office. A post office structure may be erected
in a C-l zone and the probable effect of the construction of the post office
will be to encourage office type development in the area. Therefore, the con-
sideration justifying the C-3 zoned classification on the city owned property
was no longer valid and since the use to be located on the property was a
restricted one the development would not expect a detrbwntal effect on the
property.
Mr. Keys made a motion to recommend to City Council that the application be denied.
Mr. Paden seconded the motion.
-4-
The question was called and the vote polled o All members present voted YKS o
Polled: Yes -5 No -0
***
Hearing: #67-45 City of South Miami
Request: Amend Section 20-22(3) of Code of Ordinances to provide for wholesale
and retail sales of new automotive parts in C-2 zone use district.
Zoning Director's Recommendation: The request is in accordance with a recommendation
previously made to this Board. Approval recommended.
Public Works Director Masson stated that in view of the fact that we already
have use of this type in C-2 and it has not been objectionable, neither repair
or machine shop operation would be included in this classificationo
***
Executive Session:
Remarks.
Mr, Paden complimented the Recording Secretary on the quality of the verbatim
minutes.
Mr. Eastwood reminded the Board that as a result of its action in Hearing #67-44,
a study of the area was indicated o There are presently spots of C-3 zoning,
the largest being the City owned property. He suggested the possibility of re-
moval of these "spots" and upgrading the area.
Mrs, Schechter inquired as to the relationship of sewers to the HUD Urban
~edevelopment Program. Mr, Eastwood explained that the City was ready at this
moment to go ahead with installing sewers in the redevelopment area; however,
HUD requires a planning and redevelopment study as a condition precedent to its
programs, As some street realignment will undoubtedly be required, to install
sewers at this time would result in some people having double assessments.
Therefore, we had to hold up on the sewer program until the study was made. This
should be completed in approximately six months. The item that will have the
greatest effect on the time schedule is the period required to get approval of
the plan by the residents of the area o This will be kept to a minimum by having
the planners meet with residents from the inception. The City Council has already
appointed a committee for Community Improvement to assist in this process.
Mro Keys said the area north of Sunset Drive between 62 Avenue and UoS,#l had
not been studied because of the pending HUD study, Since it appears that the
HUD study will not extend south of SW 68 Street, the committee will meet in the
very near future to prepare a recommendation o
Mrs, Schechter said she understood that Stoker Subdivision has no drainage,
She asked why this was, Mr, Eastwood explained that the last subdivision approved
in South Miami was Stoker Park which was recorded approximately two years ago,
The procedure followed by the City was for Public Works Director to determine
what improvements would be essential to the plat, to determine the cost of such
improvements and establish the bond required o
-5-
Mr. Wentz, the Public Works Director, did not indicate on the tentative plat
that any drainage installations would be required so the Board approved the
plat of Stoker Park without such requirement.
Mrs. Schechter said Mr. Corley had talked with Mr. Wentz and Mr, Wentz assured
Mr, Corley that he had asked for drainage. Mrs. Schechter said she did not
know that was required, Mr. Eastwood said he would immediately communicate with
Mr, Wentz for clarification. He noted that the City had never received a
drainage complaint from this subdivision. Mrs. Schechter said she had received
a complaint but could not give the name of the complaintant.
Mrs. Schechter said she had a st"tement for the record: "As further concerns the
Planning Board Meeting Minutes of November 14, 1967 on page 40 and 41, regarding
my query of Mr. Eastwood as to whether or not the Planning Board was being re-
placed by the Community Development Advisory Board, I did not then and do not
now feel that naming the source in the community which prompted mv question is
the issue. More important, in my opinion, was Mr. Eastwood's response and sub-
sequent to our Board on November 14, 1967 and subsequent action by Council on
November 21, 1967."
Mr. Shaw noted that the 17th Annual Convention of the Florida Planning and Zoning
Association would begin on December 6. He requested an indication of those who
would be in attendance.
Mr, Shaw stated that when the Board asks for a report, the report should be sub-
mitted to the Board before being released to the public. A Metropolitan Dade County
Study was presented to the Board at approximately 8:20 P.M. , at 8:40 P.M. telephone
calls were received at his home complaining about the matter dragging and the callers
appeared to know what was in the report. Mr. Eastwood explained that the report
had been received between 4:00 and 4:30 P.M, on the day of the hearing. He had
personally opened the envelope immediately prior to the hearing and taken copies
from it for distribution to the Board. He was at a complete loss of how contents
of the report had become public knowledge, Mrs. Schechter said she had been able
to get advance information from Metropolitan Dade County on studies in the past.
Mr, Shaw directed that Metro Planning be directed to discontinue this practice.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 P.M,
MINUTES OF THE REGUlAR MEETING
SOUTH MIAMI PlANNING BOARD
DECEMBER 12, 1967
Chairman Shaw called the meeting to order at 8:00 P.M.
Present: J. C. Shaw, Chairman
Myron Keys, Vice Chairman
James Ferguson
Absent:
Carl Paden
Joyce Schechter
James Bowman
D. K. MacVicar
Zoning Director Eastwood and Public Works Director Masson were also in at-
tendance.
The Chairman called for approval of the minutes for the meeting of November
28, 1967.
Mr. Paden noted the omission of a motion and vote on Hearing #67-45 (page 5)
and requested it be amended to read: Mr. Paden made a motion that the proposed
amendment be recommended for approval. Mr. Keys seconded the motion. The
question was called and the vote polled. All present voted YES.
Polled: Yes -5, No -0
Mrs. Schechter noted the following omissions and requested that the minutes be
amended as follows:
Under Remarks on the last page, paragraph 2: Add to sentence at end of para-
graph that Mrs, Schechter had asked complaining parties to contact Mr. Masson
at City Hall.
Under Remarks, page 5 last paragraph: Add to first sentence that Mr. Masson
had corroborated the fact that Stoker Park had no drainage.
Hearing #67-43, page 3, that the questions and answers between Mr. Paden and
Mr. Rutledge should become a part of the minutes to the effect that Mr. Rutledge
said all of the area should get the same treatment, and that Mrs. Schechter had
pointed out that the situation was different in that the property of Mr. Rutledge's
client faced on 80th Street, and Mr. Paden made the comment that there was not
the square footage involved for him to have both RU-5A on the front and resi-
dential on the rear.
Mr, Paden made a motion that the minutes be approved as individually read and
corrected. Mrs. Schechter seconded the motion.
***
Page 2
Hearing: #67-48 L. E. Cotton, Jr.
Request: Variance of rear setback requirement to permit the construction of a
swimming pool with an 8 foot rear setback instead of 15 foot minimum as required.
Subject Property: Lot 4, Block 2, Merion Park Manor, PB 60/42
Location: 6521 SW 65 Terrace
Zoning Director's Recommendation: There is a great
setback requirements in Dade County. For Example:
permits 7~ foot setback as a manner of right.
deal of variety in pool
Metropolitan Dade County
A variance for a 10 foot setback was granted in 1957 for the lot to the east
of this property. It does not appear approval of the variance will have a
detrimental effect on the neighborhood. APPROVAL recommended.
Mr. L. E. Cotton, Jr., 6521 SW 65 Terrace, appeared for the application. He
stated that if he built the pool with the required setback of 15 feet from the
rear property line it would mean that the pool would be five feet from his home.
This would present two problems. First, the problem of mildew and humidity and
second, it would result in an unsafe area for his small children. The pool will
measure 15' x 30'. Due to the added cost of screening,thc pool will not be
screened in at this time.
Chairman Shaw read a letter of objection into the record from Mr. & Mrs. E. J.
Beckman, 6520 SW 65 Street.
The City of South Miami
Planning Advisory Board
6000 Sunset Drive
South Miami, Florida
Gentlemen:
6520 SW 65 Street
Miami, Florida
December 6, 1967
Regarding hearing #67-48 on 12-12-67, we wish to voice our objection to the
variance requested on setback of swimming pool for the following reasons:
1. Our back yard is adjacent to the Cotton's property. We have
two small children who do not swim but are adept at fence climbing.
This pool will prove a hazard to us especially for the next couple
of years. We feel that with the possibility of fence climbing, the
closer to the fence that this pool is, the more hazardous it becomes.
2. Pools mean noise---the closer the pool, the louder the noise.
Note: We hope not to antagonize these neighbors with our objection.
However, there are so many instances of youngsters drowning in
Page 3
swimming pools and we are very concerned about the safety of our children.
Yours very truly,
/s/ Mr. and Mrs. Edwin J. Beckman
Mr. Keys questioned if the children to the rear of Mr. Cotton's property
had ever climbed over his fence. Mr. Cotton answered yes. Mr. Cotton
also noted that he had spoken to his neighbor in reference to this
problem and had offered to install an additional 2' extension of the top of
the existing fence with a pointed edge to the top of the fence to help
prevent the children from climbing over. Mr. Keys stated that since the
pump house for the next door neighbor's pool was by the fence and the
children had already climbed the fence he could see no added danger.
Mr. Paden questioned if the pool next door had been put in on a variance.
Mr. Masson stated that it had been granted a 10' rear setback variance.
Mr. Keys made a motion to recommend to the City Council approval of the ap-
plication. Mr. Paden seconded the motion.
The question was called and the vote polled:
Polled: Yes -4, No -1 (Mr. Ferguson)
Mr. Ferguson stated that he was not against pools at this distance to
the rear property line. He felt the proper remedy was to change the regu-
lation if it did not operate properly.
Mrs. Schechter suggested to the applicant that he enroll his children and
his neighbor's children in the free swimming classes offered by the Red Cross
upon installation of the pool.
***
Remarks
Mr. Eastwood stated that he would like to make a report on the drainage in
Stoker Park. Since the last meeting he had directed a letter to Mr. Karl
Wentz, former Public Works Director, requesting his recollections of any
requirements in Stoker Park. An answer to his letter was received on
December 6, and states in part:
"I treated this particular drainage problem the same as all
other small subdivisions. I would include in the performance
bond an item to cover the cost of any drainage I thought might
be required. It was impossible to determine, from any of the
plats submitted, just where a drainage structure would have to
be located, because there never was any grades or proposed profiles
of any street ever shown on the plat. After the street or streets
were graded and paved an inspection would be made after the first
Page 4
heavy rainfall and the location along with the type of structure
would be determined .• "
In addition, he had a memorandum report from Stephen Masson, Public Works
Director, stating part:
"Last night, December 11, 1967, there was some .84 inches of rain-
fall. This morning I made a visual inspection of Stoker Park to
see if there were areas where water was ponding or showed evidence
of ponding. My findings were that although there were several
places in the surrounding area of the county that did have water
ponding, the area around Stoker Park was dry. This, of course, is
not conclusive evidence, therefore it will be necessary as previously
stated to wait until the wet season to make final determination."
Mr. Eastwood stated that this report was made for the purpose of keeping the
Board informed that the developer would be informed that the surety bond could
not be returned until the area had been observed in the wet season. As soon as
there are further developments, they would be reported.
Mr. Keys presented the results of a study of the area between SW 62 Avenue and
U,S. 1, extending north from Sunset Drive to one block north of SW 68 Street.
The basic idea of the proposal was to retai~ Col zoning west of SW 59 Place
and to provide Col Buffer one lot in depth on the east side of SW 59 Place.
The remainder of the area between SW 58 Place andSW 59 Place to be C-2 as well
as the area on the north side·of SW 68 Street extending east from SW 58 Place.
The remainder of property to remain as presently zoned.
There was considerable discussion with the resulting alternative being con-
sidered. General agreement with plan except that the east half of Blocks 11
and 16 and the area lying south of SW 70 Street and east of SW 59 Place would
be rezoned C-3. The Board decided to inspect the area as a group at the
earliest opportunity.
Mrs. Schechter stated that she attended the recent Planning Convention. Since
she had been able to attend only one meeting she intended to pay her own con-
vention expenses.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 P.M.
MINUTES OF TIlE REGULAR MEETING
SOUTH MIAMI PLANNING BOARD
DECEMBER 26, 1967
Chairman Shaw called the meeting to order at 8:00 P.M.
Present: J. C. Shaw, Chairman
Myron Keys, Vice Chairman
Jame s Bowman
James Ferguson
D. K. MacVicar
Carl Paden
Absent: Joyce Schechter
Zoning Director Eastwood and Public Works Director Masson were also in
attendance.
Mr. Paden made a motion that the minutes of December 12, 1967 be approved
as individually read. Mr. Keys seconded the motion.
Hearing: #67-49 James H. Harris
Request: Approval of an unclassified use, furniture upholstery and
refinishing, in a C-l zone under the provisions of Section 20-23.1
of the Code of Ordinances.
Subject Property: Lots 6,7 Block 4 Cocoplum Terrace Addn, PB 48/38
Location: 6470 SW 62 Avenue
Zoning Director's Recommendation: The requested uses are usually per-
mitted in liberal business and industrial zones. The proposed location
is C-I with adjacent RU-I zoning. Denial Recommended.
Mr. James H. Harris, 22195 SW 64 Avenue, appeared for the applicant.
He stated that the building was vacant at the present time. but that
Mr. Forgill was interested in renting the property.
Mr. John Forgill, 7510 SW 80 Street, appeared for the application.
Mr. Forgill stated that he wished to establish °a furniture refinish-
ing business. His primary business will consist of refinishing f,:r'-
niture, but on occasion his customers request that he reupholster
the furniture. He has been located at 1661 SW 67 Avenue, West Miami
for approximately one year and two months. He would not be stocking
or selling furniture, only furnit.ure refinishing and an occasional
reupholstery job.
Mr. Paden made a motion to recommend to the City Council that the
application for.unclassified use be denied on the grounds that no
hardship was shown and that it would change the character of the
area. Mr. Keys seconded the motion.
The question was called and the vote polled. All members present
voted YES.
Polled: Yes -6 NO -0
Hearing: #67-50 David Hill
Request: Variance of rear setback requirement to permit the addition
to an existing building with no rear setback. 15' minimum required •.
Subject Property: A part of Section 36-54-40
Location: 6400 South Dixie Highway
Zoning Director's Recommendation: The 15' rear setback is for the
purpose of providing service areas to the rear of business uses.
Existing uses and lot layout make such service unlikely at this
location. However, the application shows no evidence of unusual
hardship.
Mr. David Hill, 6400 South Dixie Highway, appeared 1'01' the appll.cation •.
He stated that he wishes to move the radiator shop back from the road.
He intends to replace the old building on the north portion or the
property with a new building. He will need a variance on that building
also, and will make an applicat.ion in two or three weeks.
Zoning birector Eastwood suggested to the Board that no action be
taken until Mr. Hill presents his overall plan. He also noted that
the additional buildings will constitute an expansion of a non-con-
forming use.
Mr. Keys made a motion to recommend to the City Council that this
application be deferred until such time as the applicant presents
site plan showing overall development and off-street parking. Mr.
Bowman· seconded the motion.
The question was called and the vnte polled •
. Polled: Yes -4
No -0
Abstain -2
Messrs: Shaw, Keys, Bowman, Paden
Messrs: Ferguson and MacVicar
Mr. Ferguson and Mr. MacVicar abstained do the fact that they were
uni'amilar with the discussion.
Study of the area north of Sunset Drive between SW 62 Avenue and U.S. 1.
This matter was deferred until maps could be prepared. The Zoning Director
promised delivery of maps within a week. The Board plans to make an in-
spection of the area as a group prior to the next meeting.
REMA.RKS
The Zoning Director reported on a hearing in the unincorporated area
by Manfreid Franz. The location is the west side of Red Road, 140 feet
south of SW 42 Terrace. A companion application was made in South Miami
on September 26, 1967, the applicant being Mary E. Ivanik. Both the ap-
plication in South Miami and the unincorporated area were for RU-4 zoning
to permit apartment development. The application in the City of South
Miami was denied. The application in the unincorporated area has been
held by the Dade County Board of Zoning Appeals which recommended rezoning
to RU-4L, an apartment zoning classification which permits 23 units per
acre.
The entire area surrounding the tract on which the applications were
made is zoned for single family residential use. The Zoning Director
suggested that some official action be taken. Mr. MacVicar made a motion
that the City Council be requested to write a letter of objection to the
proposed rezoning to the Board of County Commissioners prior to their
taking action on January 25, 1968. Seconded by Mr. Paden. All present
voted YES,
The Zoning Director gave an outline of the background of the attempt
to vacate a street known as Pinelan Drive, lying southwest of the 62 Avenue
Shopping Center development. The minutes of the City Council reflected
that on three occasions, officials of the City have been directed to take
the necessary legal steps to vacate the alley. As a result of inadequate
legal steps and improper legal descriptions, there still remains a cloud
on the title of l2~ feet of the formal street. He requested that Some
disposition be made.. Mr. MacVicar made a motion that the City Council be
requested to pass a resolution completely vacating Pinelan Drive. Mr.
Paden seconded the motion. All persons present voted YES.
***
The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 P.Mp
MINlITES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
SOUTH MIAMI PLANNING BOARD
JANUARY 9, 1968
Chairman Shaw called the meeting to order at 8:00 P.M.
Present: J. C. Shaw, Chairman
Myron Keys, Vice Chairman
James Bowman
D. K. MacVicar
Carl Paden
Joyce Schechter
Absent: James Ferguson
Zoning Director Eastwood and Public Works Director Masson were also in
attendance
Mr. Paden made a motion that the minutes of December 26, 1967 be approved as
individually read. Mr. Keys seconded the motion.
***
Hearing: #68-1 Irving Kaplan
Pasquale Ronca, Agent
Request: Change of zone classification from RU-l to RU-2B
Subject Property: Lot 9 Block I Townsite of Larkins, PB 2/105
Location: SE corner of SW 58 Place and SW 66 Street
Zoning Director's Recommendation: Granting of applicant's request would con-
stitute "spot zoning." Denial recommended.
Mr. Pasquale Ronca, agent, 2000 SW 63 Court appeared for the application. He
stated that they do a lot of building in this area and also in the NW, and that
they find it difficult to sell single family dwellings. It is more feasible to
build duplexes.
Mr. Paden asked if Mr. Kaplan owned the property. Mr. Ronca reRlied that he
had a contract to purchase the property subject to being rezoned.
Mrs. Ethel Ronca stated that the lots immediately to the west of the subject
property contained more than one single family residence. It is their intention
to build a duplex so that one occupant will enter from 66 Street and one from
58 Place. The building will have the appearance of a single family residence.
Mrs. Schechter stated that she was of the opinion that single family residences
were in great demand in the negro area.
Mr. Bowman stated that several single family residences had been built in the
area recently and have been sold.
Page 2
Mrs. Ronca replied that she was afraid that there would not be buyers who
could qualify for a substantial FHA mortgage for a single family residence.
The following app~ared in objection to the application:
Moses Turner, 5856 SW 66 Street, stated he lived on the adjoining lot. He
was restricted to a single family residence when he built his home snd is
against zoning in the area being liberalized.
Regina Lawrence, 5880 SW 66 Street, stated she wished the applicant would
build a single family residence.
Bertha Fleming, 5875 SW 66 Street, stated there was already trouble in the
area from an apartment to the west of her. She objected to anything other
than a single family residence on the subject property.
Mr. Paden made a motion to recommend to the City Council that the application
be denied. Mr. Bowman seconded the motion.
The question was called and the vote polled. All members present voted YES.
Polled: Yes -6 No -0
***
Mr. Samuel Goldstein, 6815 SW 69 Terrace, requested that the Planning Board
undertake a study of the Nelson Homesites area, The area was originally
platted into tracts of approximately 2 1/4 acres. There has been no recent
development in the area. The area immediately to the north of Nelson Homesites,
the Craig Estate, was rezoned to RU-1 a short time ago and has been completely
developed. He wishes the Planning Board to consider a zone classification
more liberal than EU-l.
***
Executive Session:
Mr. Keys presented the proposed plan for rezoning of the area between 62 Avenue
and U.S.1 from 68 Street to Sunset Drive. The basic rezoning proposal that
all the area west of 59 Place remain C-1. The lots to the east of and facing
59 Place be C-1, except the NE corner of 59 Place and Sunset Drive which should
remain C-2. In Blocks 11 and 16 there should be a strip of C-2 zoning 200' in
width immediately to the east of the C-1 property. The remainder of the area
will be zoned C-3 except for Block 9. The area north of 68 street should be
zoned C-2 east of 59 Place and C-l west of 59 Place,
Mrs. Schechter asked if high rise zoning was permitted in business zones,
All members referred to the Zoning Code and verified that apartment uses were
permitted in business zones,
Page 3
Mrs. Schechter asked how the zoning authorities felt about C-2 zoning bounding
on parks. Mr. Eastwood answered he had never seen any published authority on
this subject. He did wish to call the attention of the Board that a recent
study of the Metro Planning Department had recommended that a large portion
of the subject property be zoned to permit high-rise apartments.
He also pointed out that the existing zoning on all the area north of the
subject property extending to the auto inspection station with the exception
of 11 small lots permitted high-rise apartments and low-cost rental development.
Urban renewal may be some time in the future and there is a great possibility
that some of the substandard housing in the area might be redeveloped into what
is commonly known as "concrete monsters."
Mrs. Schechter asked if the city was justified to make an application to
rezone the property to RU-1. Mr. Eastwood answered that recent experience with
applications by the City had not been good and he would hesitate to advertise
such a hearing particularly in an area where there was a high percentage of
Negro ownership. He would recommend that the application be sponsored by local
residents.
Mr. Keys made a motion to accept and adopt the report submitted and direct the
Zoning Director to advertise the area for rezoning in conformance to the re-
commendation. Mr. Paden seconded the motion.
The question was called and the vote polled. All members present voted YES.
Polled: Yes -6 No -0
***
Mrs. Schechter presented a slide program "South Miami Homes and Gardens -
A Way of Life".
***
Remarks:
Mrs. Schechter would like to suggest that the Board go ahead with a study of
the area between 62 Avenue and 59 Place, between 62 and 68 Streets.
Mr. Keys stated he felt this was a job for professionals and suggested a study
be ordered from Metro Planning Department.
Mrs. Schechter inquired as to whether this area being designated as a HUD
Urban Renewal area would deter Metro Planning Department from doing a study.
Mr. Eastwood replied it would have no effect.
Mr. Keys made a motion that the Metro Planning Department be directed to make
Page 4
a study of the area. Mr. M8cV1car Be.conded the nJ"tion.
The question was called and the vote polled.
Polled: Yes -5 No -1 (Mr. Bowman undecided)
Mr. Keys stated that Nelson Homesites was an area which South Miami had annexed
from the County. It was zoned for one acre estates in the County. At the time
of annexation a preliminary study was made and it was f01lnd that very few owners
in the area would gain unless there was a complete redevelopment of the area.
Most of the owners have built residences in the middle of 2 1/2 acre parcels.
Mr. Keys doubted that any property owner in the subdivision would benefit other
than Mr. Goldstein. He feels that a majority of the home owners in the area
would be against a change and unless they came in requesting a change a study
is not necessary.
Mr. E stwood stated he had just distributed complete copies of the South Miami
Code to all members present. All members would be responsible for the Code
and for keeping it up-to-date with supplements. He called the Board's attention
to a copy of the City Charter which had been inserted at the back of the book.
***
The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 f.Mo
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
SOUTH MIAMI PLANNING BOARD
JANUARY 30, 1968
Chairman Shaw called the meeting to order and the pledge of allegiance
was given.
Present: J. C. Shaw, Chairman
Myron Keys, Vice Chairman
James Bowman
James Ferguson
D. K. MacVicar
Carl Paden
Joyce Schechter
Zoning Director Eastwood and Public Works Director Masson were also in
attendance.
Mr. MacVicar ,".de a motion that the minutes of January 9, 1968 be ap-
proved as individually read. Mr. Paden seconded the motion.
*
Hearing: #68-2 James W. Gould
Request: Variance of rear setback requirements to permit the construction
of a swimming pool with" rear s~tback of 10'4" instead of 15'
as required.
Subject Property: Lot 8 Block 3 Tranquility Estates, PB 78/64
Location: 6825 SW 64 Street
Zoning Director's Recommendation: EU zones require a 50 foot setback.
this applicant's lot is 115 feet deep. The front setback requirement
for this lot has created a situation where the rear yard space has been
reduced. A definite hardship is evident. Approval recommended.
Mr. James E. Gould, 6825 SW 64 Street appeared for the application. He
stated that he needs a vari.ance of 4' 6" from his rear property line. He
has a fifty foot setback and therefore cannot get a sizeable pool in his
back yard without a variance.
Mr. Paden asked if there was any reason why the applicant could not re-
orient the pool, let it overlap the house anrl still get his rear setback.
He suggested aligning the pool north And souch instead of east and west.
Mr. Gould stated that the septic tank prevented north-south alignment.
Chairman Shaw asked Zoning Director Eastwood what dimension the code
called for between a septic tank and a pool. Zoning Director Eastwood
stated that there was no requirement.
Mrs. Schechter asked if it had definitely been established that there is
nothing which says we cannot put a pool within a certain distance from a
septic tank.
Page 2-
Mr. MacVicar made a motion to recommend to City Council that the ap-
plication be approved. Mr. Bowman seconded the motion.
The question was called and the vote polled.
Polled: Yes -4 Messrs. Shaw, Bowman, MacVicar and Mrs. Schechter
No -3 Messrs. Keys, Paden and Ferguson
Messrs. Keys and Paden wished the record to show that they were voting
"no" because there had been nO showin~ of hardship.
Mr. Ferguson stated that he has no objection to the pool being within
10' from the rear property line, his objection is that if the ordinance
is wrong the ordinance should be amended rather than keep giving variances.
*
Hearing #68-3 David Hill
Request: Variance to permit the use of the zoned right-of-way for
off-street parking
Subject Property: Begin intersection of ElL of SE>4 of SW~ of 1~ and
ElL U.S.#l SW 182.36' SE at RIA 175' NE parallel to
Hwy. 35.55' N. 228.43' to POB less R/w Sec. 36-54-40
Location: 6400 South Dixie Highway
Zoning Director's Recommendation: U.S. Highway #1 is now improved to its
maximum economical width. There appears to be no need for future widening
without considerable expense for condemnation by the State Road Department.
No dedication by the applicant has been requested or received by the State.
The requirement for additional setback constitutes undue hardship on the
applicant. Approval recommended.
Mr. Harry Penney, Architect, 6075 Sunset Drive, appeared for the applicant.
He stated that his client operates South Miami Radiator Company. His
client proposes to erect a new structure to replace part of the existing
structure. Mr. Hill has been awarded the franchise for General Tire
Company in South Miami. He needs additional off-street parking in front
of the proposed building. They have off-street parking for about 18 cars
and approximately 10 cars in the stalls while they are being worked on.
Mr. Keys asked if Mr. Hill plans to continue with the South Miami Radiator
shop. The applicant replied that South Miami Radiator Shop will remain
in the existing building which is to the rear.
Mr. Paden asked if the proposed off-street parking spaces were being made
available for use to the radiator shop. Mr. Penny stated that they were
being provided mainly for the General Tire business.
Page 3-
Mr. Eastwood explained that the excessive setback came about as a result
of a 1954 ordinance which provides for a setback of 50' Se'ly of the then
existing 66' right-of-way. The State Road Department right-of-way agents
subsequently arranged to get 30' from the FEC Railway on the Nw'ly side
of the highway and decided to settle for a 96' right-of-way. As a result,
the official right-of-way extends a considerable distance beyond actual
present need Se'ly of U.S.#l. It is this area which the applicant wishes
to use for off-street parking.
Mr. Ferguson asked for the Zoning Director's comments on the type of
zoning now in the area. The Zoning Director stated that if the applicant
were to subdivide the property and make this application on the proposed
site there would be no question of use. The applicant is not expanding
the existing nonconforming raJiator shop use. The new use is permissible
in a C-2 zone. He is providing sufficient parking for both the old and
new use. This would not constitute the expansion of a nonconforming use
so long as radiator shop use if confined to the existing building.
Mr. Ferguson made a motion to recommend to City Council that the application
be approved. Mr. Paden seconded the motion.
The question was called and the vote polled. All members present voted YES.
Polled: Yes -7 No -0
*
Hearing: #68-4 First Baptist Church of South Miami.
Request: Exception to permit the construction of a church in an RU-lA zone
Subject Property: N~ of SE% of S~\ of SE% of Section 26-54-40 and
E. 155' of W. 340' of S~ of SE% of SE% of SE% of
Section 26-54-40 and W. 185' of S~ of SE% of SE%
of SE% of Section 26-54-40 and E. 15' of S. 371.23'
of SW~of SE% of SE% of Section 26-54-40 all situated
and being Dade County, Florida
Location: Approximately 7050 SW 67 Avenue
Zoning Director's Recommendation: The proposed development of this
property meets all requirements of the regulations. Approval recommended.
Dr. McMillan, 7440 SW 72 Avenue, stated that the church is growing and
must expand. The present site is divided by two streets, 62 Avenue and
62 Court, which presents expansion problems.
Mr. William C. Kreidt, 1032 Coral Way, Architect appeared for the ap-
plication. He stated that they had tried to plan the church in keeping
with the surrounding area. They proposed excessive setbacks on all sides
of the property. All parking will be kept to the rear with access to both
Page 4-
Ludlum Roa.! and Sunset Drive.
Mr. Paden asked if there were any plans for a school. It was explained
that there were no future plans for a school. A Nursery school is proposed
on the plan.
Mr. Keys asked if the applicant could allow for a 50' buffer strip on the
north. Mr. Kreidt explained that an existing residence was located 45'
from the north property line. The applicant wishes to keep this residence
for their custodian.
Mrs. Schechter inquired as to the Metropolitan Dade County buffer require-
ment. The Zoning Director explained that Metro required buildings of
public assemblage to set back 50' from property under different ownership
and 25' from streets. There is no requirement that such setback area
be planted.
Mrs. Schechter expressed here concern with the children and traffic.
Mr. J. C. Stamm, 6761 SW 69 Terrace, stated that he had been against
this proposal for years. He had previously been located behind the church,
but had recently moved to the opposite side of the street from the church.
He asked if there were any future plans for a school.
The Chairman called a recess to give the people present an opportunity
to examine the plans presented.
Mr. Stamm congratulated the applicant on the plans and apparent wishes
to work with the people in the area. He suggested that a 50' buffer would
be desirable.
Mr. Bill Alvin, 11681 SW 72 Place, spoke for his parents. He requested
that whatever buffer the Board required on the north be put on the south
side also. He further questioned if Lilere would be any further expansion.
It was explained that there we,'e "'0 plans for future expansion.
Mr. WaIte) ~.i"p"'dn, 6780 SW 69 Terrace, stated he felt that a 50' buffer
on the norcn boundary would solve any problems.
Mr. D. Browning, 6951 SW 68 Court, inquired as to whether the applicant
would be willing to extend the wall on the north boundary westward ap-
proximately 50' to prevent children from using the area as a short cut.
Mr. MacVicar made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of the
application to permit development of the property for church purposes
substantially in accordance with the site plan submitted, except that the
buffer on the north boundary shall be 50' to any future structure or
parking area and 30 feet to any access drive. Mr. Keys seconded the motion.
The question was called and the vote polled. All members present voted YES.
Polled: Yes -7 No -0
Page 5-
*
Executive Session:
Remarks:
Mr. MacVicar made a motion that an amendment to make swimming pool set-
backs conform to the Metropolitan Dade County requirements be advertised
for public hearing. All members agreed.
*
The meeting adjourned at 9:30 P.M.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
SOUTH MIAMI PLANNING BOARD
FEBRUARY 13, 1968
Chairman Shaw called the meeting to order at 8:00 P.M.
Present: J, C, Shaw, Chairman
Myron Keys, Vice Chairman
James Bowman
James Ferguson
D. K, MacVicar
Carl Paden
Joyce Schechter
Public Works Director Masson was also in attendance.
Mr. MacVicar, seconded by Mrs. Schechter, made a motion that the minutes
of January 30, 1968 be approved as individually read with the exception
that the motion in the South Miami Baptist Church hearing read as follows:
"Recommend to City Council approval of the application to permit develop-
ment of the property for church purposes substantially in accordance
with the site plan submitted with the condition that, between the church
property and all abutting private property, a landscaped buffer of 50'
be required to any future structure or parking area and a landscaped
buffer of 30' to be required to any future access drive."
Exception: (Existing Wedemeyer residence and access road in vicinity
thereof) "Any future development of the property, beyond the site plan
submitted, would be subject to approval of the City Council only after
additional public hearing."
Mrs. Schechter inquired as to how the traffic problem was solved on the
church situation. Mr. Shaw stated that one outlet had been suggested,
but it was thought that two would be helpful. There was Some diversity
of opinion as to how this matter was left.
Mrs. Schechter inquired as to what was to be done about
bility from foliage extending near the improved avenue.
swered that the church had agreed to cut this foliage.
Motion passed. All members present voted YES,
***
Hearing: #68-5 City of South Miami
the poor visi-
Mr. Paden an-
Request: Change of zone classification as listed on attached sheet.
Subject Property: Listed on attached sheet.
Location: See attached map
Zoning Director's Recommendation; The changes advertised reflect the
recommendations made by the Planning Board at the meeting of January
9, 1968.
The Chairman read a letter of approval into the record from Ron Holcomb,
Secretary-Treasurer of Triad Investors, Inc.
Mr. Rex Faust, 7540 SW 54 Avenue, asked the purpose and thinking behind
the application.
Mr. Keys, Chairman of the committee making the study, explained that the
city property in Block 16 had originally been scheduled for a public
works site and the property was rezoned to C-3 to permit the use. Plans
changed and the site will be used for a Post Office. This will tend to
encourage office building development in the area and such development
would be discouraged by the liberal uses permitted in C-3 zone. Mr.
Keys noted that the recommendation of the Planning Board provided for C-3
zoning to a depth of 150' rather than the 200' advertised.
Mr. Paden said he did not see this as being important unless owners of
the property in question had an objection.
Mr. J. p. Canington, 6150 SW 84 Street, owner of property on both sides
of SW 59 Avenue stated that the proposal was unfair and he objected. There
is presently a transmission shop and C-3 zoning on the NE'ly corner of
5':'; 59 Place and 70 Street. To the north Mr. Canington has a lawn mower
shop, a thrift shop and a saw filing shop each on variances. He feels
he will be penalized by the changes. He does not believe the post office
will create business. Neither the existing post office or other post
offices with which he is familiar have been hubs of business. The orig.,
inal Col area was set up for Burdines, who went to Dadeland. The area
has not developed since then. The area has to be C-2 to develop with or
without a post office.
Mr. Keys answered that any city could fill itself with C-3 uses because
they have difficulty in locating. However, this is not the image the
city wishes to create.
The Chairman read a letter from Casey Air-Conditioning, Inc. Into the
record which pointed out that several businesses on either side of SW 59
Place did not conform to C-2 zoning or the proposed zoning. He feels
C-2 should be extended to the lots on the west side of SW 59 Place.
The Chairman said he was very concerned about Mr. Casey's situation for
he had submitted plans for an addition on the east side of his building.
If this proposal were passed he would not be able to make the addition.
Page 2
Legal Description Existing
Block 7 Lots 12-17
Block 8 Lots 10-12
Block 11 Lots 1-8 and 36-43
Lots 15,16
Lots 17-24
Lots 25-27
Block 16 Lots 1-8 and 36-43
Lots 10-16 and 28-35
Lots 17-27
The above all in the TOWNSITE OF LARKINS, PB 2/105
Tract 3 less W. 115'
Amended Plat of Commercial Larkins, PB 38/3
Beg. at Pt. on W'ly R/W/L of FEC 442.5' Ne'ly
of S/L of SEk of SW~ of SEk th Nw'ly at R/A
485' to N/L of S~ of S~ of SEk th E. to Pt. 45'
of NW cor of SW~ of SEk of SEk Se'ly 312.5'
to W. R/W/L FEC Sw'ly to POB Sec. 25-54-40
Begin at X of N/L of SW~ of SEk of SEk and
W/L of R/W W. 188.33' SW 214.29' SE 120'
NE 348 0 13'to POB less N. 20' Sec. 25-54-40
Begin 188.33' W. of X of W/L of SAL R/W and
N/L of SW~ of SEk of SEk W. 301.49' SE 192 0 15'
NE 214.29' to POB less N 20' Sec. 25-54-40
C-2
C-3
C-2
C-3
C-2
C-3
c-2
C-3
C-3
M-1
M-1
M-1
M-1
Zoning Proposed Zoning
C-1
C-2
C-3
C-2
C-1
C-1
C-3
C-2
C-1
C-3
C-3
C-3
C-3
-----...... ~-..M\ ......
I
~
)
)~
) _ _ _,----. ,------tmmrnn-.
~
\.--~-----------.
---j---
] : .---,...,--
I=:=IlU~
l;"r[~
'--~-
,
-+~-. r~L---
':--L...::-, E-=-= 1---1------1 .=r-='11 .---~ -
~ -"1~--t-=;=-.-
If) _ __ f t -
.• -~-I . ~ ... -il +--:-_-ilr-
----1----,
-----~--
__ I n
( nJ I \ \_ -I
Mrs. Schechter inquired as to how Mr. Casey's problem can be equated
with that of Mr. Canington who had a binder on his property.
Mr. Paden noted that there are four gasoline service stations on Sunset
Drive. Only one was granted as a result of action by the City. The
others, as well as the Farm Store, were approved as a result of court
action.
Mrs. Schechter inquired as to whether the cases had been appealed. She
also inquired as to whether apartment houses were permitted in C-2 areas.
Mr. Masson that apartments were permitted.
Mr. Paden reminded the Board that it was getting into the area of economics
when discussing individual properties and this was not the proper function
of a Planning Board.
Mr. L. Casey, Jr., 5949 SW 68 Street, pointed out the area he owned on
the map. He pointed out uses on the west side of 59 Place that would not
conform to the proposed zone. He further feels that zoning in the area
should be up-graded but felt that the division between C-l and C-2 should
be one lot deep west of SW 59 Place. He does not stand to benefit or lose
because his proposed building will be in conformance and his expansion is
a committed use in C-2.
Mr. Keys inquired as to whether McDonald's Electric was in violation.
Mr. Masson explained that he was not because he did not store material out-
side his building.
Mr. Casey inquired as to whether it was permissible to store trucks on
property. l1r. Paden answered that truck storage over night was permissible.
Mr. Robert B. Goeser, 6101 SW 47 Street, owner of Lots 15,16 Block 11
stated that the mistakes here are historical. He was permitted to build
a garage on his property twelve years ago without a hearing of any kind.
Mr. Paden reminded him that service stations were permitted in C-2 zones
but heavy repair required C-3 zone.
Mr. Goeser stated that he objected to the proposed rezoning because his
building is not suitable for C-2 uses.
Mr. Keys made a motion to recommend to City Council that the application
be approved as advertised. Mr. Paden seconded the motion.
Mr. Ferguson commented that he did not believe that C-2 north of 68 Street
should be changed. He felt the Board has recommended C-2 in the past as
far west as 59 Place. He does not feel the Board is justified in revisinz
itself because of the post office.
Page 3
Mrs. Schechter called upon Mr. Ferguson's architectural experience and
asked how he felt in this kind of situation architecturally as far as
the image is concerned.
Mr. Ferguson answered that there was a need in the City for C-2 zoning,
which is proven by C-2 and C-3 uses being the only activity in the area.
The Planning Board is going directly against the growth trend in the
area. He would like to see high class development in the area but he
does not believe it is going to happen.
Mrs. Schechter inquired as to whether he felt the new post office will
involve the kind of uses that surrounds the old post office.
Mr. Ferguson answered that the old post office area was not first class
either.
Mrs. Schechter requested that she be refreshed on the difference between
C-l and C-2.
Mr. Masson answered that most C-l uses were retail and office type uses.
C-2 permitted more liberal uses such as gasoline service stations, air-
conditioning repair, boat sales, bait and tackle shops, coin laundries, etc.
Mrs. Schechter commented that should the post office attract C-l type
uses they would still be permitted in a C-2 zone.
The question was called and the vote polled.
Polled: Yes -3
No -4
Motion failed.
Messrs. Shaw, Keys and Paden
Messrs. Ferguson, MacVicar, Bowman and Mrs. Schechter
Mr. Ferguson made a motion that Tract 3 less the W . 115' of Amended Plat
of Commercial Larkins, PB 38/3, and that portion of SW~, SEk, SEk, Sec.
25-54-40 lying S. of SW 70 Street W. of the FEC Railway and E. of Amended
Plat of Commercial Larkins be rezoned from M-l to C-3. Mr. MacVicar
seconded the motion.
The question was called and the vote polled. All members present voted YES.
Polled: Yes -7 No -0
Mr. MacVicar made a motion that Lots 1 thru 8 and 36 thru 43, Block 11
and Lots 1 thru 8 and 36 thru 43, Block 16, Townsite of Larkins, PB 2/105
be rezoned from C-2 to C-3. Mr. Ferguson seconded the motion.
The question was called and the vote polled. All members present voted YES.
Polled: Yes -7 No -0
Page 4
Mr. Ferguson made a motion that Lots 17 thru 27, Block 16, Townsite of
Larkins, PB 2/105 be rezoned from C-3 to C-2. Mr. MacVicar seconded the
motion.
The question was called and the vote polled.
Polled: Yes -5 Messrs. Shaw, Ferguson, MacVicar, Bowman and
Mrs. Schechter
No -2 Messrs. Keys and Paden
Mr. Ferguson made a motion that Lots 10 thru 16 and 28 thru 35, Block 16
Townsite of Larkins, PB 2/105 be rezoned from C-3 to C-2. Mr. MacVicar
seconded the motion.
The question was called and the vote polled. All members present voted
YES.
Polled: Yes -7 No -0
***
Hearing: #68-6 James R. Wilkins, Charles E. Morris & Talmadge Joyner
Request: Change of zone classification from EU-l to RU-lA
Subject Property: E% of SE% of NE% of Sec. 26-54-40 less the S. 35'
and the E. 35'
Location: Approx. 5 acres north of Hardee Drive between Ludlam Road and
SW 67 Court
Zoning Director's Recommendation: Approval recommended subject to platting.
Mr. Masson explained that an EU-l zoned building site is required to have
a minimum of one acre. The RU-lA zone classification requires a minimum
size lot of 12,500 sq. ft. and a minimum 100' frontage. He explained that
in Tranquility Estates Subdivision, immediately to the west of the property
in this application, the zoning pattern is for EU-lA on the lots facing
Hardee Drive with RU-lA on the remainder.
Mr. Talmadge Joyner, 6200 SW 67 A venue appeared for the application. He
has applied for RU-lA zoning because all property to the east and west
of him has that classification. High cost of land has dried up the demand
of acre building sites. Mr. Joyner stated that three parcels involved
constitutes a family tract. It was the intention of the applicant to
sell off or develop the parcels facing on SW 67 Court.
No plan of development was submitted.
Page 5
Mr. Keys made a motion to recommend to the
plication be approved subject to platting.
motion.
City Council that the ap-
Mr. Paden seconded the
Mr. Paden noted that two residences on the Wilkins property faced Hardee
Drive and meet the 50' setback requirement previously imposed on Tran-
quility Estates.
There was general discussion on the desirability of placing a buffer
zone of EU-lA on the north side of Hardee Drive.
The question was called and the vote polled.
Polled: Yes -5 Messrs. Shaw, Keys, Bowman, Paden & Mrs. Schechter
No -2 Messrs. Ferguson and MacVicar
Mr. Ferguson commented that an EU-lA buffer should be required on the
portion of the property that faces Hardee Drive. Mr. MacVicar agreed.
**
Hearing: #68-7 Inman Padgett, Trustee
Request: Change of zone classification from C-l to C-2
Subject Property: Lots 20,21,22, W. A. Larkins, PB 3/198
Location: NE corner of SW 73 Street and SW 59 Avenue
Zoning Director's Recommendation: Granting the requested change would
constitute spot zoning. Denial Recommended.
Mr. Tippens, Jr., 2488 SW 17 Avenue, appeared for the application. He
stated he did not believe that a service station would down grade the area.
He furnished a sketch and plan for a proposed Pure Oil Service Station.
Mr. H. Toomey, owner of the NW corner of 59 Avenue and 73 Street, stated
that he had no objection to the request.
Mr. Paden made a motion to recommend to City Council that the application
be denied. Mr. Bowman seconded the motion. All members present voted YES.
Polled: Yes -7 No -0
**
No remarks
The meeting adjourned at 9:40 P.M.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
SOUTH ~IAMI PLANNING BOARD
FEBRUARY 27, 1968
Chairman Shaw called the meeting to order at 8:00 P.M. and the Pledge of
Allegiance was given.
Present: J. C. Shaw, Chairman
Myron Keys, Vice Chairman
James Bowman
James Ferguson
D. K. MacVicar
Carl Paden
Joyce Schechter
Zoning Director Eastwood and Public Works Director Masson were also in attendance.
Mr. Ferguson made a motion that the minutes of February 13, 1968 be approved as
individually read. Mr. Bowman seconded the motion.
***
Hearing: #68-8 Thaddeus and Helene Mark
Request:
Miami so
use in a
Robert E. Rutledge, Jr., Attorney
Amend Section 20-22(2) of the
as to provide for retail sales
C-l zone use district.
Code of Ordinances of the City of South
and repairs of bicycles to be permitted
Subject Property: Lots 1,2,3 Block 2 Commercial Larkins, PB 26/29
S. 50' of Tract 2, Amended Plat of Commercial Larkins, PB 38/5
Lots 4,5 Block 2 Commercial Larkins, PB 26/29
Beg. at point 90.7' E. of SW cor of SEk of SW\ of SEk of
Section 25-54-40 tho N. 219', th E. 118' th S.2l9', th W.
118' to POB
Location: NW corner of SW 59 Place and Sunset Drive
Zoning Director's Recommendation: There is no inherent conflict between this
proposed use or that of a department store or grocery store so long as the
following safeguards are imposed:
1. All business shall be conducted within an air-conditioned, soundproof
building.
2. No outside display or storage of merchandise.
3. No outside repairs of bicycles. Repairs to be an incidental portion
of the operation.
It is recommended that bicycle sales and service be classified as a C-l use
subject to the stated conditions.
Mr. Robert Rutledge, Attorney, 7321 SW 57 Court, appeared for the applicant.
He stated that the applicant's property is presently zoned C-l. Mr. Mark has
recently acquired a Schwinn dealership which he wishes to operate from this
location. Mr. Rutledge further stated that the dealership operation will be
compatible with that of the South Miami Federal and will be superior to the
Gulf station across SW 59 Place. The applicant will comply with the Zoning
Director's recommendation. There will be no repairing of bicycles on the
first floor. All bicycles will be taken in the rear, and the building will
be air-conditioned. Mr. Mark's business is primarily sales with repairs limited
to items sold. Mr. Mark has talked to South Miami Federal and they have no
objection.
Mr. Keys asked if there would be any bike motor repairs. Mr. Mark stated that
there would not.
Mr. Paden made a motion to recommend to the City Council that the application
be approved subject to the restrictions stated in the Zoning Director's Recom-
mendation plus the additional prohibiting of bike motor repair. Mr. Bowman
seconded the motion.
The question was called and the vote polled. All members present voted YES.
Polled: Yes -6 No ... 0
Mr. Ferguson entered the meeting at this time.
***
Hearing: #68-9 James H. & Vivian Warrington
Request: Variance to permit the creation of two building sites from an existing
building site with the following variances:
Parcel #1: S. ~ of E. 65' of W. 220' of Tr. 6, Revised Plat of a Portion of the
Amended Plat of Palm Miami Heights, PB 43/37.
Lot frontage of 65' (100' required) and lot area of 9,347 square feet (12,500
square feet required)
Parcel #2: S. ~ of E. 85' of W. 305' of Tr. 6, Revised Plat of a Portion of the
Amended Plat of Palm Miami Heights, PB 43/37.
Lot frontage of 85' (100' required) and lot area of 12,225 sq. ft. (12,500 sq. ft.
required).
Location: 5961 SW 79 Street
Zoning Director's Recommendation: None
Hearing withdrawn.
Mrs. Schechter raised the question of where to draw the line between policing
and zoning on this case.
Chairman Shaw asked Public Works Director, Mr. Masson, to check the property
for violations and report back to the Board at the next meeting.
**k
Page 2
Hearing: #68-10 Banko and Sours
Request: Approval of an unclassified use, furniture refinishing in a c-3 zone,
under the provisions of Section 20-23.1 of the Code of Ordinances.
Subject Property: Lot 18 less beg. at SW cor., th NE 85' SE 64.12', W. 100' to
POB less Hwy., Coopers, PB 4/152
Location: 5824 South Dixie Highway
Zoning Director's RecOlllllle1ldation:
C-3 uses. Approval is recommended
within the building.
The use requested is compatible with other
with the condition thst all work be performed
Mr. Banko, 6301 SW 63 Court, appeared for the application. He stated that he had
a family business in mind. At the present time all the work in this field is
going downtown. He further stated that there would be nothing obnoxious done on
the premises.
Mr. Paden asked if he would use power tools or steam. Mr. Banko answered they
would not. Paint would be removed by tri-sodium phosphate in a water solution
of 110 degrees.
Mrs. Schechter asked if he would be using solvent. Mr. Banko stated they would
not be using any solvents or lacquers.
Mr. Paden asked if he used a spray or anything which would require exhaust fan.
Mr. Banko answered he did not.
Mr. Keys made a motion to recommend to the City CouncJl that the application be
approved subject to the Zoning Director's recommendation. Mr. Paden seconded the
motion. All members present voted YES.
The question was called and the vote polled.
Polled: Yes -7 No -0
***
Hearing: #68-11 William Lehman
LeRoy J. Smith, Agent
Request: Variance of height requirement to permit the erection of a sign 25'
in overall height. (21' permitted)
Subject Property: Lots 1 thru 4 Block 5 Oak Heights, PB 46/64
Location: 6310 South Dixie Highway
Zoning Director's Recommendation: The applicant's request for variance is similsr
to those that have been granted in this area. Also, the height requested is the
same overall height requirement recommended by this Board as an amendment to the
sign regulations. Approval recommended.
Page 3
Mr. LeRoy J. Smith, 6310 South Dixie Hwy., appeared for the applicant. He
stated the applicant wished to install a sign 25' in height which would look
similar to the Standard Oil sign to the south. This sign would be 3' high
and 23' long. The copy would read: ''William Lehman Cars".
Mr. Paden asked if the location of the sign would be the same as the present
sign. Mr. Smith stated no, it would be back an additional 30' from the
sidewalk.
Mr. Ferguson asked the size of other signs in the area. Mr. Masson stated
that the Arby's and Royal Castle sign are 230 sq. ft. The South Miami Shop-
ping Center sign is larger.
Mr. MacVicar asked if the signs in the area were there on variances. Mr.
Masson asnwered that they were.
Mr. MacVicar made a motion to recommend to City Council that the application
be approved. Mr. Keys seconded the motion. All members present voted YES.
The question was called and the vote polled.
Polled: Yes -7 No-O
***
Executive Session.
Remarks:
Mr. Masson called to the attention of the Board that the most recent Metropolitan
Dade County Planning Study on the Lee Park area was received that morning and
had been distributed to members of the Board. Mr. Shaw inquired as to the cost
of the study. The Zoning Director agreed to furnish the information at the
next regular meeting. Mr. Keys observed that there was considerable variance
between the recommendation of the South Miami Planning Advisory Board and that
of Metropolitan Dade County. He inquired of Mr. Eastwood as to the position
of the City in event of a law suit. Mr. Eastwood was of the opinion that such
suits were unlikely because the RU-4 zoning recommended by the Planning Board
permits the single family residential uses recommended by Metropolitan Dade
County. He recommended that the City attempt to bring the zoning into con-
formance with the Metropolitan Dade County plan because several parcels in the
Lee Park area would lend themselves weekly rental high density apartment houses.
Mr. Eastwood announced that this was the last meeting that he would be with the
Planning Advisory Board, thst he had enjoyed working with the Board and would
look forward to meeting its members in the future.
Mr. Ferguson commented that Mr. Eastwood had been a real asset to the Board
and was very capable. He had a lot of respect for Mr. Eastwood and was sorry
to see him go.
Mr. Bowman stated that he had enjoyed working with Mr. Eastwood and looked
forward to seeing him around.
Page 4
Mr. Keys stated that he had no comment.
Mr. Paden stated that he hated to see Mr. Eastwood leave and had enjoyed working
with him. He thanked Mr. Eastwood for his help and advice and wished him the
best of luck.
Mrs. Schechter had no comment.
Mr. MacVicar inquired as to the status of the amendment concerning overhangs
on Sunset Drive and Red Road. Mr. Masson explained that the City was running
into difficulty in getting proper liability insurance for structures encroach-
ing on public right-of-way.
H e also inquired as to the status of the proposed amendment on swimming pool
setbacks. An ordinance providing for the ssme setbacks as Metropolitan Dade
Coutny will be submitted at the next meeting preparatory to advertising.
Mr. MacVicar inquired as to whether Mr. Eastwood would be available to make
studies of the type that the City presently orders from Metropolitan Dade
County upon his severance from the City. Mr. Eastwood replied that he would not
be competing with Metropolitan Dade County in this area.
Mr. Shaw announced a noon meeting on February 29, 1968, by the South Florida
Chapter of the Florida Planning and Zoning Association at the Biscayne Cafeteria,
917 Biscayne Boulevard.
He stated that he felt badly about Mr. Eastwood leaving and felt that Mr.
Eastwood had given himself and the Board a world of guidance and was very sorry
to see him leave the City.
He reported that he had recently talked with a number of people who felt they
had not been treated in a polite manner by members of the Building and Zoning
Division. Mr. Eastwood suggested that anyone with the interest of the City
at heart would be doing the City a great favor by reporting specific instances
of the type mentioned to the offending persons superior. Generalities do not
help very much. The proper manner of doing this is to report the persons
involved, the time of the incident and the actual acts that the customer felt
were not proper.
The meeting adjourned at 8:45 P.M.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
SOUTH MIAMI PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 12, 1968
Chairman Shaw called the meeting to order at 8:00 P.M.
Present: J. C. Shaw, Chairman
Myron Keys, Vice Chairman
James Bowman
James Ferguson
D. K. MacVicar
Joyce Schechter
Absent: Carl Paden
Public Works Director Masson was also in attendance.
Mr. Ferguson made a motion that the minutes of February 27, 1968 be approved
as individually read. Mr. MacVicar seconded the motion.
***
Hearing: #68-12 Ben D. Wilder
Robert E. Rutledge, Attorney
Request: Change of zone classification from RU-l to RU-5A
Subject Property: E. 190' of SE% of SE% of NE% less N. 200' of Sec. 36-54-40
Location: NW corner of SW 80 Street and Red Road
Zoning Director's Recommendation: Based on existing conditions, granting the
applicant this request would constitute "Spot Zoning". Denial recommended.
Chairman Shaw read a letter from Robert E. Rutledge, Attorney, into the record
requesting that the application be deferred until the next meeting since he
had been called out of town. No one else was present to represent the ap-
plication.
The Chairman stated it was his feeling that the application should not be
deferred and that those at the meeting should be given the chance to have their
say.
The following persons appeared in objection to the application:
Mr. George Dimintros, 5740 SW 81 Street, stated that if this request was ap-
proved there would be nothing to stop the rest of the people in the area from
requesting the same thing.
Mr. Stephen R. Hill, 5760 SW 81 Street, stated he felt this change would not
help the area and could see no reason why this area should be rezoned anything
other than residential.
Alice Neuderson, 5702 SW 80 Street, stated she has nO objection to the rezoning
but she questioned the position in which approval would leave her property and
the property south to Snapper Creek.
Mildred Carlson, 8020 Red Road, stated she felt that if the subject property
were rezoned the rezoning should be continued south to Snapper Creek so all could
benefit.
Mary C. Kleyla, 5720 SW 81 Street, stated she was against this rezoning because
she is not looking forward to businesses in this area. The traffic is much too
heavy without this change. She has worked many years to increase the value of
her property.
Chairman Shaw read a letter of objection into the record from Mrs. Demintros,
5740 SW 81 Street.
Mrs. Schechter made a motion to recommend to the City Council that the application
be denied. Mr. Ferguson seconded the motion.
Mr. Keys stated he would like to recommend that the motion be amended to read
denial without prejudice.
Mrs. Schechter stated she did not feel that the people in this area should have
to keep coming back for additional hearings.
Mr. MacVicar questioned if the applicant could withdraw this request before it
came up before the Council.
Mr. Masson answered that he could withdraw.
Mrs. Schechter requested that the record show that the Wilder property did not
have sufficient footage to meet requirements of RU-5A zoning.
Mr. Shaw stated that if he were owner of the subject property he would be hesitant
about building a home on the property. It is a corner property on two busy
thoroughfares. There is an apartment complex directly across the street and a
school adjacent to the north. From that point north all the frontage is zoned
for business to SW 66 Street. If the recent application approving business
zoning south of SW 76 Street had not been approved, he would feel differently.
Mrs. Schechter inquired as to whether schools are permitted in RU-l zones and
whether the Eliot School site would be considered residential zoning. Mr.
Masson replied that it had not been changed. Mrs. Schechter recommended that
anyone building on the Wilder tract face SW 80 Street.
Mr. Masson called to the Board's attention that RU-4 zoning was recommended
for this area by a Metropolitan Dade County Zoning Study in 1965.
Page 2
The question was called and the vote polled.
Polled: Yes -5 No -1 (Mr. Shaw)
***
Hearing: #68-13 City of South Miami
Request: Amend Section 20-5(6)(c) of the Code of Ordinances of the City of
South Miami so as to permit canopies, marquees and awnings to project nine
feet into official right-of-way in the "c" usage zones.
Zoning Director's Recommendation: This application reflects the result of a
study completed by the Planning Board. Approval recommended.
Mr. Masson stated that this is the result of a Board study that had been
under discussion since June 1966. No advertisement had been made until prior
to this hearing.
Mrs. Schechter made a motion that the Zoning Director's recommendation be
approved to recommend to amend Sec. 20-5 so as to permit canopies, marquees and
awnings to project 9 feet into official right-of-way in commercial zones. Mr.
Bowman seconded the motion.
Mr. Ferguson inquired ss to original items discussed such as height limitations.
Mr. Masson replied that these items were governed by the South Florida Building
Code.
The question was called and the vote polled. All members present voted YES.
Polled: Yes -6 No -0
*** .
Executive Session:
1. Recommendation to City Council on the closing of E/W alley in Tract 2
of Amended Plat of Commercial Larkins, PB 38/5.
Mr. Masson explained that this alley is an East-West alley located on the north
boundary of the Thad Mark site. It is customary for the Board to make recom-
mendations on requests to close rights-of-way.
Mrs. Shechter questioned as to whether Mr. Mark would have access after his
building was completed.
Mr. Shaw stated that he understood 10' alleys are inadequate and the Board should
be attempting to get a 20' alley instead of vacating the alley requested.
Mrs. Schechter inquired as to the benefits to be derived from closing the alley.
There will be other large buildings in the area which will need an alley.
Page 3
Mr. Ferguson inquired as to whether the entire 10' of the vacated alley would
vest to the applicant.
Mr. Masson called the Board's attention to the regulation which provided that
any building in a commercial zone must set back 5' from an alley and if the
alley is less that 20' wide the building must be set back an additional foot
for each foot the alley is short of 20 feet. Therefore, the owner would now
have to setback IS' from the alley line. A 10' alley is inadequate for loading
and unloading and fire protection.
Mr. Ferguson made a motion to recommend that the request be denied. Mr. Keys
seconded the motion.
The question was called and the vote polled.
Polled: Yes -5 No -0 Abstained -1 (Mr. MacVicar)
Mr. MacVicar felt that a study of the alley situation throughout the city is
justified before taking action on matters of this type. Mr. Ferguson agreed
that a study was justified.
Mr. Masson said it has been his experience that alleys are very hard to get
without condemnation.
2. Recommendation to City Council on the closing of E/W alley between Blocks
4 and 5, Cocoplum Terrace Addition, PB 48/38.
Mr. Masson reported that at the Council meeting of February 6, 1968 there was
discussion as to the ownership of this 35' alley. The matter was referred to
the Board for the purpose of obtaining a recommendation as to whether it should
be closed. Presently, it is covered with junked automobiles.
Mr. Keys said he did not see any function performed by this alley but it
would be a windfall to the adjacent property owners.
Mrs. Schechter suggested that a uniform policy on the clOSing of alleys be
arrived at and applied here.
Mr. Shaw explained that the only benefit to the City from vacating the alley is
that the property would appear on the tax rolls.
Mr. Ferguson made a motion to table this application to give any opportunity
for a study on alleys. Mr. Keys seconded the motion stating he would like a
legal opinion from the City Attorney as to the ownership of vacated alleys.
The question was called and the vote polled. All members present voted YES.
Polled: Yes -6 No -0
Page 4
3. Study of proposed ordinance requiring 4/5 majority vote for additions,
changes or amendments to the zoning regulations or restrictions. City Council
requested recommendations.
Mr. Keys noted that no members of the Council were present to indicate what
was wanted from the Board on this item.
Mr. Keys made a motion to defer the item to the next regular meeting to give
Council members an opportunity to appear. Mrs. Schechter seconded the motion.
Mr. Ferguson stated it was the prerogative of the Council as to the weight it
wished to be given recommendations of the Planning Board. He did not feel this
was a proper item for action by the Board.
Mr. MacVicar felt that if the Council wished an opinion, the matter would more
properly be submitted to the Charter Review Board.
Mrs. Schechter was of the opinion that the Council should be given an opinion
as requested.
The question was called and the vote polled. All members present voted YES.
Polled: Yes -6 No -0
4. Study and recommendations to City Council on (a) asphalt pathway on west
side of SW 67 Avenue between Sunset Drive and Jr. High School and (b) asphalt
pathway on south side of Hardee Drive between SW 67 Avenue and SW 62 Avenue.
There was a general discussion as to the best location for pathways along the
subject streets. Items considered were availability of right-of-way, existing
obstructions, existing control devices and the undesirability of additional
crossings, present pedestrian and bicycldst behavior patterns and availability
of funds from Metro and the City.
Mr. Keys made a motion to recommend that asphalt pathways be located (a) on
the east side of 67 Avenue between Sunset and Hardee Drives and (b) on the
south side of Hardee Drive between SW 62 and 67 Avenues. Mr. Bowman seconded
the motion. The question was called and the vote polled. All members present
voted YES.
Polled: Yes -6 No -0
5. Discussion of Metropolitan Dade County Planning Study of Lee Park Area.
Mrs. Schechter made a motion to defer this matter in order to give a member of
the Metro Planning Department an opportunity to appear and explain the basis
of the recommended plan. Mr. Ferguson seconded the motion.
The question was called and the vote polled.
Polled: Yes -5 No -0 (Mr. MacVicar)
Page 5
6. Consideration or recommending to the City Council to amend Section l7A-7(b).
swimming pool setback requirements.
Mr. Masson explained that the proposed amendment was the same as the present
Metro regulation. Mr. MacVicar stated that the existing regulation is not
realistic and is resulting in numerous applications for variances. He felt it
to be desirable for regulations in the area to be consistent.
Mr. MacVicar made a motion to advertise the proposed amendment for public
hearing. Mr. Keys seconded the motion.
The question was called and the vote polled. All members present voted YES.
Polled: Yes -6 No -0
***
Remarks.
Mr. MacVicar noted that a memorandum was attached to the agenda material
requesting consideration of different meeting nights in order to give the
Council more time to examine the Planning Board's recommendations and inspect
properties subject to hearings.
Mrs. Schechter recommended that the Planning Board meeting be moved to the
Wednesday or Thursday following the Council meeting. This was discussed with a
general preference being shown for Wednesday if this measure was necessary.
Mr. Shaw suggested that the next City budget provide sufficient funds to have
an outside stenographer transcribe the Board minutes the following morning.
His idea would be to have the minutes printed the same day and immediately
delivered to the Council by City Police.
Mrs, Schechter suggested that the City look into the purchasing of an opaque
viewer to be used in the presentation of matters before the Board and Council.
Mr. Chris Phelan said he was familiar with this type of equipment and it was
excellent. He suggested that the possibility of borrowing a viewer from South
Miami Junior High School should be looked into.
Mr. Shaw directed Mr. Masson to get cost figures on this equipment and try to
have a viewer available at the next meeting.
Mrs. Schechter reported that she had been contacted by a member of the South
Miami Elementary School about the possibility of a perimeter road around the
school area. There is presently a private road along the south boundary of
Junior High School which stops at the Elementary School area.
Mr. Ferguson stated that such a road did not seem to be a good idea to him.
Mr. Keys reported that the sidewalk on the north side of SW 76 Street from 61
Page 6
Avenue north is in poor condition and corrective measures should be undertaken.
Mr. Bowman submitted a petition of twenty property owners out of thirty-two
owning property from SW 62 Avenue to 150 feet east of SW 60 Avenue between SW
66 Street and Hardee Drive. The petition requested that RU-4B zoning now exist-
ing in the area be changed to RU-l.
Mr. Masson noted that the request conformed with the recent Lee Park Study
prepared by Metropolitan Dade County.
The Chairman accepted the petition for study by the Board.
***
The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p. M.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
SOUTH MIAMI PLANNING BOARD
March 26, 1968
Chairman Shaw called the meeting to order at 8:00 P,M.
Present: J. C. Shaw, Chairman
Myron Keys, Vice Chairman
James Bowman
Absent:
Carl Paden
Joyce Schechter
James Ferguson
D. K. MacVicar
Public Works Director Masson was also in attendance.
***
Hearing: #68-14 John T. Parker
Robert E. Rutledge, Attorney
Request: Change of zone classification from G-1 to C-2
Subject Property: Lots 1,2,3 Block 12, Townsite of Larkins, PB 2/105
Location: SW corner of SW 59 Place and SW 68 Street
Zoning Director's Recommendation: This application covers a portion
of a recommendation by the Zoning Division to change to C-2 zone use
that which was denied by both the Planning Board and the City Council.
No new information has been presented to necessitate change. The Board
should sustain its previous action.
Mr. Robert Rutledge spoke on behalf of the applicant. He pointed
out that application for a license had been filed by Benedict Silverman
with the intention of opening a laundromat at the location. Since the
application was denied, Mr. Silverman could not use the property.
Mr. Rutledge stated further that the property had not been consistently
used in some time and that in fact there had been no tenants since 1966.
There is an existing structure on the property with parking in the rear
of the 85' x 81' parcel, making it too small for many uses.
The Parkers have expended over $160.00 advertising for tenants in local
newspapers and the general consensus of the callers has been that they
cannot use a C-1 zoning in this area. The only possible businesses
have been a lawn mower shop and an indoor machine shop.
Mr. Rutledge pointed out that the applicant is laboring under a hard-
ship in that he is paying taxes and sewer system charges on the property
but has not been able to use it since 1966. He argued that the appli-
cant has the right to economically use this area and is being deprived
of that privilege.
Mr. Paden questioned the dimensions quoted as compared to those shown
on the diagram. Mrs. Parker explained that the diagram showed area
that belonged to the back property. This property has an existing
frame building that should not be considered with this application.
Mrs. Schechter stated that she sympathized with their hardship and
felt that it would seem that other people in the area would be suf-
fering the same hardship. She said she would like to see the Lee Park
Study with its suggestions for the entire area before rendering a
decision.
There were no objectors to the application.
Chairman Shaw closed the public portion of the hearing.
Mr. Keys made a motion that the application be corrected to omit the
west 35'. Motion died for lack of second.
Mrs. Schechter made the motion to recommend to the City Council that
the application be tabled until such time as the Board had the op-
portunity to review the Lee Park Study. Mr. Bowman seconded the motion.
The question was called and the vote polled.
Polled: Yes -5 No -0 Absent -2
***
Hearing: #68-15 City of South Miami
Request: Amend Section l7A-7(b), swimming pool setback requirements of
the Code of Ordinances of the City of South Miami.
Zoning Director's Recommendation: A review of recent setback variances
granted has revealed that the requests have been for 10' rear setback.
It is recommended that this be adopted instead of the 7~' as shown on
the application. Also, a corresponding change on screen enclosure
setbacks of 8~' instead of 6' as shown.
Mr. Masson opened with the observation that the setback requirements
for the County were set up to take into consideration the 75' x 100'
RU-l lots, while the South Miami regulations called for 75' x 137.5'
lots (10,000 sq. ft.) area.
Mr. Keys stated that while the Board was too restrictive, he felt
that the County was unreasonably liberal. They brought the screen
enclosure setback down from 12' to 9', making the house practically
the size of the lot. He further commented that he did not like vari-
ances because if there are too many, it shows that there is something
wrong with the ordinance.
Page 2
Mrs. Schechter made a motion to recommend to the City Council that
the application to amend the swimming pool setback requirements with
the changes recommended by the Zoning Director be adopted. Mr. Paden
seconded the motion.
The question was called and the vote polled.
Polled: Yes -5 No -0 Absent -2
**
No further business was considered.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
SOUTH MIAMI PLANNING BOARD
APRIL 9, 1968
Chairman Shaw called the meeting to order at 8:00 P.M.
Present: J. C. Shaw, Chairman
Myron Keys, Vice Chairman
James Bowman
Sidney Fagin
Carl Paden
Jayce Schechter
Harold yak ely
Public Works Director Masson was also in attendance.
Mr. Paden made a motion that the minutes of the meeting of March 26,
1968, be amended to indicate that the meeting was recessed and later
reconvened and adjourned. Mr. Keys seconded the motion to approve
the minutes as corrected. The motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Keys made a motion that the minutes of March 12, 1968, be approved
as individually read. Mr. Bowman seconded the motion.
Mr. shaw introduced the two new members of the Board, Mr. yakely and
Mr. Fagin, before proceeding with the agenda.
*****
Mr. Shaw called for discussion on the tabled hearing #68-14. Mr. Keys
said that since the hearing was tabled with the intent that the Board
have the opportunity to review the Lee Park Study as presented by the
Dade county Planning Department, that the Study should be presented
before the Board considered the hearing.
Since there was no objection, Mr. Shaw stated that the third item of
the Executive Session would be considered first. Mr. Masson then
introduced Mr. James Duncan and Mr. James Zimmerman of the Metropolitan
Dade County continuing Planning Services Division of the Planning
Department. Mr. Shaw thanked them for attending to night and apolo-
gized for their unnecessary trip to the March 26th meeting.
Mr. Duncan pointed out that the original request for a study was for
the northwest section of the Lee Park area only but that the Planning
Department Had suggested that a study of the entire area would be more
consistent than considering one segment. He then turned the presentation
over to Mr. Zimmerman who was the project planner on this particular
project for his explanation of the findings.
Mr. Zimmerman said that rather than a formal presentation, he would
proceed on the assumption that the members of the Board had read the
report and he would give the background, recommendations and reasons
for those recommendations.
Mr. Zimmerman pointed out that this was the second study of this area
for the City of South Miami. The previous one had been submitted on
February 24, 1967. The factors applicable to the southern section of
the study were basically the same at this time as they were when the
previous study was made, so the recommendations remain basically the
same also.
The study is a general look at the zoning and the land use in the area.
It was not intended to be a comprehensive plan and did not include
water and sewer recommendations, new streets or new lot patterns. One
of the factors brought out by the study was that the area contained
about 25% of the population of the city but only about 8% of the land.
He pointed out that a majority of the area qualified in the County
Tax Assessor's office for Homestead Exemption. This indicated that
this is an area where people come to live, to stay, and is not a rental
area.
Mr. Zimmerman discussed the overall condition of the structures in the
area and made the observation that it was not the home owner that
had the deteriorating home, but rather the rental property for the
most part. A comparison would indicate that rental property was,to
some degree, a detriment to the area.
It was further mentioned that the study had indicated that the multi-
ple unit structure in this area had not been maintained to the degree
that would have been best for the area. The single family structures
and most duplexes had been, for the most part, much more carefully
maintained.
The land use of the area is primarily residential which is any place
of residence whether single family, duplex or apartment, but it is
predominantly single family. The existing zoning pattern, however,
is predominantly not single family, but for multiple family or
commercial.
It appeared that the growth in the area had been stymied and had not
been up to its potential for development. Mr. Zimmerman said the
area could develop commercially or multiple family in the commercial
zones or in single family and duplex development of the lower zones.
-2-
It was the opinion of the Planning Department that the commercial uses
did not want to go in this area on a large scale basis. This area is
not the commercial area of South Miami. The established commercial
area in South Miami is east of the highway. This is where a person
can come shopping and visit a number of different types of stores with
a minimum of trouble and this is where a man wants to put his business,
not somewhere out of the way.
If the commercial is not developing, why isn't the residential developing?
Mr. Zimmerman said it was the opinion of the study that people don't want
to build residences in an area where a gas station or grocery store
might be built right next door.
Mr. Zimmerman's recommendation was to make the zoning do two things,
first , to match, as much as possible the existing land usage in
the area, and secondly, to provide zoning in the area that would be
an impetus to new growth and provide a type of self-regeneration.
Mr. Zimmerman was of the opinion that the zoning classification for
a part of the area is very poor because so much is allowed in the area.
The classification in question is the RU-4B zone which is the most
liberal residential classification. It is more liberal than the
high density RU-6 zone. It allows more people, more dwelling units
per acre than the RU-6 zone. There is also no height limitation for
RU-4B.
The predominance of RU-4 and RU-4B zoning allowed a very high number
of dwelling units with no consideration of existing uses of the area
and with no consideration of what this type of development would do to
the area. The lower density duplex and single family zones existing in
the area have to be recognized.
The existing commercial services are necessary here as they are in any
neighborhood, not to draw outside traffice, but simply as a service to
those living in the community. The RU-6 is a zone that will a number of
people in an area, but with a good deal of control as to setbacks, size
of property, amount of greenery, etc., and for that reason would be a
good buffer between the commercial zone on Sunset Drive and the lower
density residential section to the north of that.
Mr. Zimmerman's proposed zoning moved from RU-6, to RU-3, to RU-2B and
finally to the basic recommendation for the area, which is the RU-l
zone classification. It was his observation that if the area were
zoned RU-l, people would be able to build with confidence that they
would not have a gas station built next door.
-3-
Mr. Zimmerman presented some tabulations in which the possible density
under the existing zoning and the possible density under the proposed
zoning were computed and compared. In preparing these figures, a
certain amount of consideration was given to the fact that the owner
might not develop the land to the fullest capacity. Even so, the
present potential is 4,769 dwelling units as compared to 1,763 units
under the proposed zoning. There are now 762 dwelling units in the area.
There was a question fromthe floor as to where a two-story town house
complex might be located. Mr. Zimmerman said he did not believe
South Miami had an ordinance providing for town houses, but he felt
the best location would be in the RU-3 zone, or in the RU-2B zone in
the middle of the study area.
As to zoning spread, Mr. Zimmerman said that there was always a poten-
tial danger of its occurring in any area, that it was up to the city's
Planning Board to control it. The best defense to zoning spread is
a plan for an area with a large number of reasons for the plan; the
city then has a strong case in any zoning disputes.
There was another question from the floor as to what the procedure
would be if a person had a commercial structure in an area that is
rezoned for residential use. Mr. Zimmerman explained that it is
considered a non-conforming use. The only way this can be removed in
South Miami is if the structure is destroyed to a degree greater than
50%; then it cannot be rebuilt.
Mr. Bowman asked about the legality of building on 25' lots. The
question was referred to Attorney Robert Rutledge who was in the
audience. He said it was possible for a person to build on these lots,
but it would depend when he bought them and the continuity of title.
Mr. Paden made a motion that the Board consider Public Hearing #68-14
at this time. Mr. Keys seconded the motion. The motion passed by
a unanimous vote.
*****
Hearing: #68-14 John T. pa rker
Robert E. Rutledge, Attorney
Request: Change of zone classification from C-l to c-2
Subject Property: Lots 1, 2, 3, Block 12, Townsite of Larkins, PB2/105
Location: SW corner of SW 59 Place and SW 68 Street
-4-
Zoning Director's Recommendation: This application covers a porticle
of a recommendation by the Zoning Division to change to C-2 zone use
that which was denied by both the Planning Board and the city Council.
No new information has been presented to necessitate change. The
Board should sustain its previous action.
Mr. Robert Rutledge represented the applicant, John Parker. He stated
that the applicant had owned the property since the early 1940's.
Since late 1966, there have been no steady tenants, only an occassional
occupant. He has expended over $160 advertising in area newspapers
but has not been able to rent the land. The only prospective tenants
have been a lawn mower shop and an indoor machine shop, both C-2.
Mr. Rutledge pointed out that Mr. Parker must pay taxes on the property,
will soon be required to hook up to the sewer line, and will pay
charges for that, but has been denied the right to economically use
this property by virtue of the existing zoning. Mr. Parker is not a
speculator and is not seeking an economic advantage, but only an
economic use of the property, and would be willing to consider any
suggestions on how the property could be used and remain compatible
with the neighborhood.
Mr. Fagin observed that the application was not just for a variance,
but for a change in zoning. Mr. Keys remarked that the side of
SW 59 Place is already C-2.
There were no objectors to the application.
Mr. Shaw closed the public portion of the hearing.
Mr. Paden observed that when the Post Office comes in, it is possible
that if will bring in a number of people who do not go to the area at.
this time. Mrs. Schechter asked Mr. Z;.mmerman if he thought the
coming of the Post Office would change the character of the surrounding
area. He felt that it would because of the amount of traffic passing
through. He added that their report was made on the basis of keeping·
this a residential area.
Mr. Keys said he would like to go on record as agreeing with Mr.
Zimmerman 100%, but that the Council had not gone along with the
previous recommendations, but had extended C-2 zoning to the east side
of SW 59 Place, and in view of this, he did not think C-2 on the west
side was incompatible. Mr. Keys then made a motion to recommend to
the Council that the application be approved.
Mr. Paden seconded the motion.
Mr. Masson stated that he made his recommendation in light of the
previous one, which was to deny the applic ation.
-5-
The question was called the vote polled.
Polled: Yes -2
No -4
Abstain -1
(Keys, paden)
(Bowman, Shaw, Schechter, Yakely)
(Fagin)
Mr. Fagin stated that he thought it best that he abstain because
he felt he lacked sufficient information to make a decision on the
matter at this time.
*****
Executive Session:
1. Mr. Shaw stated that this matter had been considered before, but
was deferred because no members of the City Council were present to
glve their views. He said the Council at this time can change a
zone by a 3-2 vote, but would like to make it a 4-1 vote.
Mrs. Schechter said it was her understanding that there were two
recommendations actually. One was first brought up by Mr. Bramson
that the Council should have a 4-1 vote to change zone classifications.
It was then modified to so that a 4-1 vote would be required to
change a zone when it would be overriding the recommendation of the
Planning Advisory Board.
Mr. yakely pointed out that at one time the Planning Board had
some authority and was more than simply advisory in nature. He
also noted that the 4-1 vote would be necessary for additions,
changes, or amendments to the zoning regulations or restrictions,
but does not mention the Planning Board at all.
Mrs. Schechter made the observation that 80% of the agenda for the
city council was composed of zoning matters. She felt it was a
large amount of zoning for the city's policy makers to have to deal
with. For this reason, she felt that the Board should be the voice
or indicator on zoning matters.
Charter amendment that provided
majority vote of the Council.
The recent election provided for a
a 4/5 vote could be required by a
Mr. yakely did not feel the Council should ask the Board to rule on
how much authority the Council should give the Board.
Mr. Masson said the ordinance as proposed did not refer to the Board.
Mr. Shaw thought that the Council was trying to gain some time to
-6-
consider the proposal or simply wanted it to reach more minds for
opinions. Anything the Board would do in any case would be only a
suggestion.
Mr. Shaw was a little fearful of the 4/5 vote because one council
member might be very conservative and that would be one vote right
there. Since zoning can be a matter of personal judgement, it could
be very easy to get another vote and drop the issue.
Mr. Shaw added that he would feel safer if the Council could take the
time to join the Board on their Monday inspection tours or hear the
tapes of their conversations on the various zoning matters. He con-
ceded however, that the Council was very busy as it was.
Mr. Paden agreed with Mr. Shaw but stated that the Council had made
the Planning Advisory Board an advisory board and it should be the
Council's policy to take action on such a proposal.
Mrs. Schechter felt the Board should let its thoughts be known
and that she wanted the record to reflect that there should be a
4/5 vote so it would be a more meaningful vote.
Mr. Paden suggested that a recommendation on this matter should
come more properly from the Charter Review Board.
Mr. Masson said he felt that the Board should also require more than
a simple majority vote to pass measures.
Mr. yakely pointed out that the Board used to have eleven members
and that there was a required vote of six persons in favor of a
matter to pass it, regardless of the attendance. He pointed out
that this would be more in line with the original concept of the
Board, that is reql: c.i.nc; a majority vote of the membership rather
than just those present at a particular meeting.
Mr. Fagin remarked that it would be incongruous to ask the Council
to give a 4/5 vote when the Board uses a simple majority. This
makes for a loose vote at one end and a tight vote at the other.
Mr. Shaw related that the City Attorney had ruled that anyone
person could constitute a quorum because of the strictly advisory
nature of the Board.
Mrs. Schechter said that this was in indication of the light in
which the Board is held.
-7-
Since there was no objection, Mr. Shaw moved onto the next item.
2. Mr. Shaw opened the discussion of a new meeting night with
the information that Mr. Holly, who had at first made the request
for a possible new meeting night, had since changed his mind.
Mr. Paden said that it should not take more than 24 or 48 hours to
get the minutes out and that would leave enough time for them to
be reviewed.
Mrs. Schechter requested that the minutes as well as the excerpts
be forwarded to the Council. Mr. Masson said that this request
should be made of the City Clerk, since she handled the Council's
paperwork.
3. Mr. Keys asked what was going to be done about Lee Park Area Study.
Mr. Shaw thought the Board should move to consider it.
Mrs. Schechter suggested that the Board hurry since anyone could
come in the next day and take out a permit to build high density
structures.
Mr. Keys said he would like to see a study made to see if the people
could build homes on the 25' lots.
Mr. Bowman asked what type of home could be built. He said he
hoped it wasn't town houses.
Mr. Keys said if the Board was not careful, it could be row houses.
Mr. Yakely remarked that the study from the Metro Planning Department
raised the number of units from approximately 760 to 1700. He asked
Mr. Bowman if this would alleviate the situation. Mr. Bowman said
yes he thought it would and that some apartments would also be needed.
Mrs. Schechter said it should not be high density, that the home
owners would want to keep it down to the 1700 estimate. Mr. Bowman
said that there still had to be some apartments, that some people
did not want to own homes.
Mr. Paden asked Mr. Bowman about duplexes and Mr. Bowman concurred
that duplexes would be good.
Mrs. Schechter said the apartment buildings should be of the 36-unit
type, not the 78-unit ones.
Mr. Fagin said the Board should determine the most critical area.
-8-
Mrs. Schechter was of the opinion that the Board should get the feeling
of the people. If the Board advertised for a public hearing now, and
later wanted a little more time, at least the start will have been
made. She said a section at a time could be dealt with. Mr. Bowman,
she added, had already turned in a petition covering a portion of the
area under discussion, from 64 Street to 66 Street, between 60 Avenue
and 62 Avenue.
Mr. Masson said that the petition he had did not reach into the
northeast corner of the study area.
Mr. Shaw suggested that the area be defined.
Mrs. Schechter made a motion to request that the Acting Zoning
Director advertise a public hearing for the property included in
the petitions previously submitted to him by Mr. Bowman.
Mr. Bowman seconded the motion.
The question was called and the vote polled.
Polled: Yes -7 No -0
Mr. Fagin then asked Mr. Zimmerman if he felt that this was a good
step. Mr. Zimmerman replied that he thought is was because a
smalled step at a time allowed the people to become familiar with
the change, especially when some of it gets quite technical.
Mr. Zimmerman again remarked that the study was made with the view
of keeping it primarily a residential area. Mrs. Schechter said
that the Board should find out what the people want. Mr. Shaw
cautioned against trying to be a popularity board for its own sake.
*****
Remarks.
Mr. Shaw informed the Board of the the Ninth Annual Congress of
P1a.nning And Zoning, "lay I through May 4, at the Causeway Inn in
','dmpa, Florida.
Mr. Shaw said he also planned to ask the Mayor if more research
could be done on town houses, such as getting ordinances from other
cities, and contacting contractors and architects.
Mrs. Schechter wanted the record to reflect that she thought the
,,:."111-"8 wouJd be helpful to the Council in making their decisions.
-9-
Mrs. Schechter felt that the minutes should be at the council's
seats for meetings as well as the excerpts.
Mrs. Schechter also asked what happened to the swimming pool
ordinance between the time it left the Board and got to the Council,
that is was something quite different as far as the dimensions.
Mr. Masson explained that the Board approved the requirements as
recommended by the Zoning Director, but that when the excerpts
were typed into the Council material, the Zoning Director's
recommendations were left out.
There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:50 P.M.
-10-
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
SOUTH MIAMI PLANNING BOARD
April 30, 1968
Chairman Shaw called the meeting to order at 8:00 P.M.
Present: J. C. Shaw, Chairman
Myron Keys, Vice Chairman
Sidney Fagin
Carl Paden
Joyce Schechter
Harold Yakely
Absent: James Bowman
Public works Director Masson was also in attendance.
*****
Hearing: #68-16 William J. Jugo, Applicant
Request: Change of zone classification from RU-3 (church use)
to C-l.
Subject Property: The S. 45' of Lot 22, Lots 23, 24, 25 all less
the E. 25' and Tract 2 less the E. 25', the S. 25' and the W. 60'
all in William Hobbs Subdivision, PB 4/111
Location: 7320 S.W. 62 Avenue
Zoning Director's Recommendation:
with the overall study approved by
recommended.
The
ilie
applicant's proposal complies
Planning Board. Approval
Mr. Tom DeWolf introduced himself as Mr. Jugo's attorney and
distributed plans of the proposed layout to member of the Board.
Mr. Jugo explained that there would be three buildings on the property.
The first building will be a sound stage for commercial, educational
and theatrical films. The second building there will be animation,
an optical room and a technical editing room. The third building
will have a sound recording stage on either the first or the second
floor. The remaining floor will house the executive offices.
Mr. Jugo said the films made at the location would be for world-wide
distribution and would be educational as well as theatrical.
Mr. Yakely asked that a correction be noted on the maps distributed to
the Board members, that is that 62 street should actually read "62
Avenue .. II
Mr. Jugo further pointed out that there was adequate area for parking.
Mr. Keys asked Mr. Jugo that if in the event the request is granted to
C-I, did he feel that they could carryon their operation in the C-I
zone or would there be a need for later variances. Mr. J-ugo was of
the opinion that they could operate under C-I zone classification.
He added that he had contacted vance Morgan, relative to parking,
and that Mr. Morgan, president of S.M. Hospital, had stated they could
lease space from the Hospital. Mr. Paden objected that parking space
had to be owned and could not be leased to meet minimum requirements.
Mr. Jugo said that they had the minimum required by ordinance and that
he was speaking of extra space for overflow. He added that the sound
recording rooms would be sound-proofed, so there will be no noise
because it is important to the recording that there be outside noise.
Mrs. Schechter asked if the Board was sanctioning the kind of parking
where the automobiles back into the main flow of traffic since some
of the parking spots on the diagram indicate angle-parking.
Mr. Jugo said that their plan was to park the cars on the property and
off the street.
There was a general discussion in which Mr. Jugo explained that there
would be a wall around the entire property with one central place of
ingress and egress, therefore the automobiles would not be backing
into the street or across sidewalks.
Mr. Fagin asked if Mr. Jugo intended to purchase the property across
the street from the church that was presently being used as a parking
lot. Mr. Jugo replied that this was not their intention.
Mr. Fagin asked that since a movie studio was not listed in the C-I
zone classifcation, wouldn't Mr. Jugo have to go through two different
steps, first, to make the property C-I and then another request for a
specific use variance. Mr. Masson said that a movie studio was not
listed in C-I but that there is a provision in the Code that if a
use is not listed, the applicant has the opportunity to ask for an
unlisted use.
Mrs. Schechter asked if the Board were to make a classification for
a movie studio, such as Coral Gables has, would the applicant have
the required number of parking spaces according to that particular
use. Mr. Masson said that the only provision South Miami has is
-2-
the same as for an office building.
Mrs. Schechter asked how many employees will be in the studio. Mr.
Jugo said it was difficult to determine exactly, but it would be
about fifteen persons on the average.
Mr. Jugo explained that most of the productions will be exteriors,
being shot in the Everglades, Miami Beach, etc. only about 10%
of the productions would be shot in the studio itself. Even most
of the interiors would be exteriors in the sense that they would be
shot in lobbies of hotels, etc.
Mr. Fagin asked what the average working day would be and Mr. Jugo
said a standard nine-to-five day.
Mr. Yakely asked Mr. Jugo where this additional parking spoken of
earlier was located. Mr. Jugo said it was to the rear of the
hospital. Mrs. Schechter said she thought that that had been pur-
chased for the hospital since they were already rather over-crowded,
and the situation would probably be worse when they expand.
Mr. Shaw asked if the provisions for parking had considered the
technicians who might come in just temporarily and also had provision
been made for a loading zone. Mr. Jugo explained that when he said
fifteen people, he had included those that would be there on a
temporary basis.
Mr. Shaw also asked, because there seemed to be some question as to
whether or not the studio could operate under the C-l classification,
if any further variances would be needed. Mr. Jugo said he didn't
think so.
Mr. Shaw asked Mr. Masson if this zoning change were granted by
council, could the city automatically issue a building permit as a
C-l operation. Mr. Masson exp~ained that at the time the plans
were brought in to make the sanctuary into a sound stage, a variance
for a new use would have to be requested. At the time the request
for a new use is made, the Council has the prerogative of setting
any conditions on it that seem necessary.
Mr. Paden said that as he understood it, the applicant would ask to
add to the C-l classification uses the use as a movie studio. Mr.
Masson said not necessarily, that under Section 20-23.1 of the Code
that any use not listed in any previous categories will require
approval prior to the issuance of a use permit, but it would not
necessarily be added to the C-l list.
-3-
Mr. Yakely asked Mr. Jugo why he didn't use the area in back of the
buildings for parking. Mr. Jugo said they would if they became too
crowded, but for the present they would like to leave it as a
garden.
Mr. Paden asked if the angle parking that now existed on 62 Avenue
was on right-of-way or private property. Mr. Masson said it was
some of both. Mr. Paden asked who authorized the angle parking there.
Mr. Masson said he couldn't say, that it was not marked for angle parking.
Mr. Fagin commented that Mr. Jugo has fulfilled the minimum requirements
for parking for his application and that he thought the conjectures
about future parking had no bearing on the case.
Mr. DeWolf asked the Board if the application as it now stands is
for a movie studio as they had outlined rather than a general C-l
zone classification.
Mr. Shaw said that there are actually two distinct steps which could
be accomplished simultaneously. Mr. Masson explained that the change
of classification to a commercial use requires a public hearing.
The listing of an unlisted use requires Council action only, so the Board
may recommend to the Council that the use for a movie studio be
approved. However, Mr. Masson felt it best to see the plans for
renovation of the property before approving the new listing.
There were no objectors to the application.
Chairman Shaw closed the public portion of the hearing.
Mr. Keys made a motion to recommend to the Ci.ty Council that the
application for a change in zone classification from RU-3 (church use)
to C-I be approved.
Mr. Fagin seconded the motion.
Mr. yakely asked if Mr. Jugo could have the specific use as a movie
studio approved at the same time the Council approved the C-l classi-
fication. Mr. Paden said he thought it was possible if the plans
were submitted prior to the application going to the Council. He
did not feel that that should be part of the Board's recommendation.
The question was called the the vote polled.
Polled: Yes -6 No -0 Absent -I
-4-
Hearing: #68-17 John E. Curtis, Applicant
Request: Variance to permit the creation of two building sites
(138.5 x 187.5 and 138.5 x 125) from an existing lot.
Subject Property: Tract A. of the Resubdivision of Lots 7, 8, Block
1 and Lot 7, Block 3 of La Hamaca, PB 55/26
Location: 5500 S.w. 63 Avenue thru to s.w. 63 Place
Zoning Director's Recommendation: The applicant's proposal creates
two building sites that conform to the area requirements of RU-l
zone and the EU-M zone of the County portion to the west. This
request does not appear to have a deleterious effect on the neighborhood.
Approval recommended.
Mrs. John E. Curtis was in attendance at the hearing.
Mr. Shaw referred to a letter from R. C. collins stating that he
owned Lots 3 and 4 of the Block and had no objection to the request.
There were no objectors to the application.
Chairman Shaw closed the public portion of the hearing.
Mrs. Schechter made a motion to recommend to the City Council that
the application for a variance to permit the creation of two building
sites from an existing lot be approved.
Mr. Paden seconded the motion.
The question was called and the vote polled.
Polled: Yes -6 No -0 Absent -1
*****
Hearing: #68-18 David Hill, Applicant
Request: Variance of the following to permit the erection of a
detached sign:
1.
2.
3 .
4.
Area of 240 sq. ft. instead of 132 sq. ft as permitted.
Overall height of 28'6" instead of 21' as permitted.
Front setback of 8'0" instead of 20' as required.
Side property line setback of 1'0" instead of 26'4"
as required.
-5-
Subject Property: Begin intersection of ElL of SE\ of SW\ of
and ElL U.S.#l SW 182.36' SE at RIA 175' NE parallel to HWy.
N 228.43' to POB less R/W Sec. 36-54-40.
Location: 6400 South Dixie Highway
NW~
35.55'
Zoning Director's Recommendation: The applicant's request for
variance are on conditions that are self-imposed. Denial recommended.
Paul Schaefer spoke for the applicant since he is associated with
General Tire and Rubber Company as is Mr. Hill. Mr. Schaefer said
that whatever the applicant did, he wanted to do with the approval of
neighbors. He said they recognized they would be remissed to enter
a battle over the request.
The applicant needed a sign of this type to be constant with the
surrounding signs on Dixie Highway and because he operates a business
that demands that demands to be recognized from the street since a
great deal of the business is drive-in business.
Mr. Schaefer said he would like to make amendments to the request
for a variance if it was in order at this time. He also asked the
Board if all members were familiar with the appearance of the sign.
He said it was the normal big, red "G" on a white background.
He explained that these signs are made at a central factory to
standard sizes and the outlets requests are governed to an extent
to the pre-manufactured sizes.
Mr. Schafer read the following amendments to the application:
1. Instead of a request for 240 sq. ft., they would accept
150 sq. ft.
2. Overall height would be acceptableat 25'.
3. Front setback of 8' instead of 20' as required would stand.
4. Side property line setback of 1'0" would be amended to
50' or more.
Mr. Schaefer said he felt the sign would be just as effective 50'
away from the side property line as l' and that he thought the 8'
front setback would seem the most important to him.
Mr. Schaefer said it was an uncluttered sign with no changing colors
or messages. He said they did not want to ask for something that
the surrounding people would object to.
Mr. Fagin asked if it was a lighted sign. Mr. Schaefer replied it
could be either way.
-6-
Mr. yakely asked if that meant that the sign would be 8' back from
the sidewalk. Mr. Paden said yes, that the inside edge of the side
walk was the property line.
Mr. Fagin asked what the present setback of the building was. Mr.
Hill stated that it was 40' at one point and 25' at another point
due to an addition to the building. If the sign was put 20' back
it would not allow room for parking and for automobiles to pass through.
Mrs. Schechter asked the zoning Director if the amendments would alter
his recommendation.
Mr. Masson pointed out that Item 4 in the request for variance would
no longer be in effect since the applicant indicated he would not
only meet the requirement but exceed it; Item 1 is no more objection-
able then the Arby's sign which is 180 sq. ft.; the overall height
of 25' is one of the recommendations made by the Board in amending the
sign ordinance; and as long as the front setback variance does not
use up any parking spaces, it would not necessarily be objectionable.
Mr. Paden observed that a few times since the Board made the
recommendation regarding the 25' height, it has also recommended
approval of variances for 25'.
Mr. Masson said that it is in line with previous variances the Board
has granted to other applicants.
Mr. Schaefer said that in reference to the 180 sq. ft. of the Arby's
sign, how objectionable would the the extra 30 sq. ft. be. Mrs.
Schechter said it is, that it already looks like Coney Island.
Mr. Fagin asked what part of the sign was considered in determining
square footage. Mr. Masson said it was the face of the sign that
actually had the writing.
Mr. Shaw read a letter from Hughes Miller in objection to the sign.
Mr. Miller then appeared and stated that he would withdraw his objection
on the basis of the amendments, particularly on the basis that the
sign would be 50' from his property not 1'0".
councilman Ed Holly asked the Board if he might be heard. He remarked
that the comment had been made that night that the City is reaping
the benefits of its mistakes. He pointed out the trend toward
greater liberalization in zoning rulings and cautioned the Board on
drawing a line before South Miami doesbecome a southern coney Island.
-7-
Mr. Masson pointed out that when the square footage of the sign
was reduced, the minimum front setback decreased from 20' to 16'.
Chairman shaw closed the public portion of the hearing.
Mr. Keys made a motion to recommend to the City Council approval of
the application based on the corrections made and recorded by the
Zoning Director.
Mr. Paden said he would second the motion but would like Mr. Keys
to specifiy thosd dimensions.
Mr. Keys
l.
2.
3.
4.
then enumerated as follows:
Area of 150 sq. ft. instead of 132 sq. ft. as permitted.
Overall height of 25 ft. instead of 21 ft. as permitted.
Front setback of 8'0" instead of 16' as required.
Si.de property line setback of 50' instead of 26'4" as requjred.
Although Item 4 could be deleted because the minimum requirement had
not only been met but exceeded, it was so noted in the recommendation at
the request of Hughes Miller because he had withdrawn his objection to
the application on the basis of the 50' setback.
Mr. Yakely inquired as to the status of the new sign ordinance that
the City Attorney is reported to be working on. Mr. Masson reported
that it had been sent to the City Attorney when he was appointed, but
he did not know the present status of it. Mr. Yakely asked what the
recommendation had been for square footage and Mr. Masson said there
hadn't been a change in that particular measurement. The overall
height recommended was 25', with no change in the front setback.
The question was called and the vote polled.
Polled: Yes -4 No -2 Absent -1
Mrs. Schechter asked that the record to show that her reason for
voting no was that she would like to hear what the city Attorney
will rule on the different specifications that were sent to him and
that it might also give the applicant some time to think, he might
need another variance in the meantime.
Mr. Paden stated that he voted yes because the city Council had
already established a precedent, based, he felt, on the Board's
recommendation, by granting variances for signs 25' high.
Mr. Fagin said he concurred with Mr. Paden for the same reasons.
-8-
Hearing: #68-19 Alfred Jaskewicz, Sr., Applicant
Robert E. Rutledge, Attorney
Request: Change of zone classification from RU-l to RU-4
Subject property: East 305' less the North 151.07' of Tract 2,
Palm Miami Heights, PB 38/52
Location: 6201, 6211, 6221 S.W. 78 Street
Zoning Director's Recommendation: Under existing conditions,
granting this zone change would put additional pressures for more
liberal zoning on the property to the east. Further, it does not
comply with the study area approved by the Board. Denial recommended.
Mr. Larry Rice of Robert Rutledge's office appeared for the applicant.
The application is for the erection of an apartment house on the
subject property. It pointed out that it is not an initial intrusion
of a foreign use in that area. There already exists in the area, an
apartment house, the Cambridge House.
In the area bounded by Dixie Highway, S.W. 62 Avenue and 78 Street
and S.W. 63 Avenue, this property is the only property now being used
for residences, all the rest have either RU-4 or C-l uses. He
acknowledged that cambridge House is not actually zoned RU-4, but
it has been granted a variance.
Mr. Rice displayed a map made available to him by phil Delaney that
showed that the subject property is the only parcel of land east of
U.S. #1 that is adjoining a C-l or RU-4 use from 74 Street to 80
Street that has been refused an Ru-4 use or zoning change.
Mr. Rice referred to an objection in the hearing file that was signed
by a number of persons. He said that some of them were quite a
distance removed from the subject property, so he would have to assume
that the objection was to apartment houses in general.
Objections to the use of automobiles and noise is something that
would be found in any neighborhood, not just in reference to apartment
buildings, according to Mr. Rice.
Mr. Rice said a city has a responsibility to provide various types
of housing for all its citizens, particularly in an instance as
exists in Dade County today where there is such a shortage of rental
units.
-~
Mr. Rice explained plans for the building as drawn by Mr. Victor
DeKonschin. He pointed out that there are plans for 24 units
with 36 parking spaces and the plans could be altered to provide
the maximum of 34 units with minimum parking spaces and all required
setbacks without the necessity of variances.
Mr. Paden questioned the ability to provide for additional parking
spaces if the number of units were increased. Mr. DeKonschin said
that for one thing the plan was not drawn to scale and that accounted
for any possible appearance of a lack of parking area. He assured
the Board that it would not be necessary to use the front or side
setbacks for parking.
Mr. Keys asked if the applicant intended to hook up to the sewer
system. Mr. Rice said they planned to hook up to the one on S.W.
62 Avenue.
Ralph James spoke in objection to the application. He said the
tenants of the apartments were all university of Miami students
with noisy cars who left beer cans allover the street and had no
regard for the children in the neighborhood when driving.
Mr. Shaw referred to a petition of objection from 35 residents and
a letter of objection from Albert Leeson.
Joseph Gula said that this is a primarily residential neighborhood
and through spot zoning, an apartment was allowed in. He said
that when the apartment was first being approved, there was a great
deal of conversation about how nice it would be, but it has resulted
in only a lot of garbage.
He referred to cars driving on lawns, incidents of vandalism, noise
generated by the apartment house. He felt that the owner of the
property must be a speculator. The gain through taxes for the city
doesnot justifiy an apartment in a residential neighborhood.
Mr. Rice conceded that Mr. Gula may have a legitimate objection, but
he did not feel the offenses of undesirable persons could be eliminated
by eliminating apartments. If a person abuses his vehicle, you do
not eliminate that abuse by eliminating apartments, you would eliminate
automobiles and this could happen in any residential area as well.
Mr. Delaney brought up the point that in the time since the cambridge
House was constructed, the City and the Planning Board had insti-
tuted numerous restrictions that made apartments a much more desirable
addition to a neighborhood.
-10-
Mr. Delaney felt that in planning the growth of the community, that
there wasn't much growth left in single family resident buildings.
The community should not say that the price of admission to the
City of pleasant Living is a single family residence.
Mrs. Schechter asked Mr. Delaney if he was a realtor and if he
lived in South Miami. Mr. Delaney replied that he was a realtor
and has had his business in South Miami for eleven years although
he does not reside here.
Mrs. Schechter asked Mr. Delaney if he was aware of an attempt by
another realty company to obtain the land where Mr. Gula lives
along with the five other residences on that side of the street, to
eliminate another section of residences. Mr. Delaney replied that
he could best answer that question by saying that in the growth of
all communities, single family residences must eventually give
way and if that wasn't the case, there would still be wigwams on
Manhattan.
Mr. Rice stated that the realty company referred to asked this
applicant to hold off on the request for the time being, but that
the applicant preferred to take his chances rather than be inti-
midated.
Chairman Shaw closed the public portion of the hearing.
Mr. Yakely made a motion to recommend to the city Countil that the
application for a change of zone classification from RU-l to RU-4
be denied.
Mr. Paden seconded the motion and called the Board's attention to
the fact that the subject property is outside area that has been
approved for apartments in the City of South Miami and that that
area is not half filled at the present time. until the area is
filled, he did not see any reason to expand it.
Mr. Fagin asked about the granting of a variance allowing cambridge
House to be constructed. Mr. Keys explained that it was granted
by the Council and that at the time the variance was granted there
was no good apartment house ordinance. In order to secure certain
restrictions, a variance was granted rather than rezoning because
had the City rezoned at that time, the builders could have done
anything that that zone permitted which was not the thing the Board
wanted.
Mr. Fagin commented that he had been active with the Boy Scouts in
-11-
the area in questi.on and that they frequently cleaned up the
parki.ng lot and street in the area of the Elks Lodge that had been
littered with beer cans.
The question was called and the vote polled.
Polled: Yes -6 No -0 Absent -1
*****
Hearing: #68-20 william A. Shepard, Applicant
Request: variance of setback requirements to permit the erection
of an accessory building with a side setback of 2'8" instead of
30' as required.
subject Property: Lot 4 and the South 10' of Lot 3, Block 5,
cocoplum Terrace, PB 25/4
Location: 6940 S.W. 62 Court
Zoning Director's Recommendation: The applicant's
variance are on conditions that are self-imposed.
request for
Denial recommended.
Mrs. William Shepard explained that she and Mr. Shepard spent a lot
of time in the yard and if the garden house were moved it would be
in the center of the yard or a tree would have to be removed.
She would like it at the edge of the lot because there is a driveway
there from the Sunset Apartments. Since there have been accidents
in her yard from cars coming through the driveway, they do not
like to live in that section of the yard. She explained further it
was a garden house for tools, fertilizer, etc.
Mr. Keys asked Mr. Masson if this type of building meets with the
South Miami Building Code. Mr. Masson said it meets with the Dade
County Product Control Board requirements.
Mr. Paden mentioned that when he inspected the area the day before,
there had been a light breeze and the roof was flapping up and down.
He wondered what would happen in a hurricane. Mrs. Shepard said
the roof had not been secured because the building first had to be
approved and there would be no point in completing it if it were
not approved.
Mr. Fagin asked Mr. Masson if granting this variance would be setting
a precedent. Mr. Masson replied that variances are granted where you
-12-
feel there is a definite hardship.
Mr. Shaw asked Mrs. Shepard if she was aware of the fact that the
garden house could be relocated legally. She said she was, but they
would rather not have it if they could not locate in the area they
want it.
There were no objectors to the application.
Chairman Shaw closed the public portion of the hearing.
Mr. yakely made a motion to recommend to the City council that the
application be denied.
Mr. Paden seconded the motion.
Mr. Paden said he felt the building was an eyesore in its present
location and that it must be an affront to the neighbors to the west.
Mr. Fagin said that there must be some way to prevent people from
acting outside the confines of the Building Code. Mr. Paden said
that it is very difficult to police the situation unless someone
calls attention to it; every piece of property can't be watched.
Mr. Fagin asked how this case was brought to the attention of the
City. Mr. Masson said the Shepard's are also building an addition
to their house and the building inspector saw the garden house in
the course of inspecting the addition and the inspector informed
Mrs. Shepard that they would have to comply with the setback require-
ments.
The question was called and the vote polled.
Polled: Yes -6 No -0 Absent -1
*****
Hearing: #68-21 David Popper, Applicant
Request: Variance of rear setback requirements to permit the con-
struction of an addition to an existing residence with a rear setback
-13-
of 22' instead of 25' as required.
Mr. Masson reported to the Board that Mr. Popper had called the
City Manager, Mr. McConnell that afternoon and requested that the
application be withdrawn.
Mr. Paden made a motion to accept the applicant's request for
withdrawal.
Mr. Keys seconded the motion.
The question was called and the vote polled.
Polled: Yes -6 No -0 Absent -1
******
Executive Session:
Chairman Shaw called for the approval of the minutes of the meeting
of Apr il 9th.
Mrs. Schechter said there were two areas for correction. Page 6,
paragraph 5, to finish the sentence would be, "4/5 vote could be
required by a majority, rather than by a majority vote of Council,
4/5 vote could be required overriding a majority vote of the Planning
Board." Mrs. Schechter said that was a comment to be recorded
verbatim.
Mr. Paden said he did not recall if there was a motion on that item
and Mrs. Schechter said there was not.
Mrs. Schechter continued that on page 7, paragraph 4, "Four-fifths
vote to override the Planning Board, four-fifths vote of Council
to override the Planning Board so that it would be, so that the
Planning Board would be a more meaningful Board."
Mrs. Schechter said that at one point Mr. Shaw made some comments
that she thoughtvery good and asked that the record reflect them
and she felt they should have been recorded verbatim.
Mr. Shaw stated that he believed, "This was my comment on giving
the reason for my feeling that the 4 to 1 vote should not take place
in that I made the comment that in a Planning Board there is often
one conservative vote, on the council rather, there is often one
conservative vote which automatically cancels out the one and then
if we had one more Council person who werinot completely decided,
was the least bit undecided, his vote might be no and my comment
-14-
was that this would impede the progress of the city. And I further
commented that I felt that possibly the Planning Board's recommendations
and deliberations might be somewhat more meaningful in that we actually
act as specialists as compared to medicine, the general practitioner
versus the specialist in medicine, that this is the only thing we
do,these are the only considerations we have, but more important that
we actually do visit the sites that are before us and I felt that
if Council had time to ride with us, this would be beneficial.
Obviously they have many things to do, including making a living for
their own families, but generally that was the text of what I said."
Mr. Paden made a motion that the minutes be approved as corrected
and individually read.
Polled: Yes -6 No -0 Absent -1
*****
Remarks:
councilman Ed Holly told the Board that he had used the Board as
an example of government of government in action for Mark and Amy
Silver who were with him that evening.
Mr. Yakely referred to the city Attorney's ruling that one person
could constitute a quorum for the Board since it was strictly
advisory in nature and asked if the present City Attorney could be
asked to rule on what specifically constitutes a quorum.
Mr. Paden pointed out that in the previous operating instructions,
which may still be in effect, they stated that in any specific case
not covered by a particular rule, the Board would follow Robert's
Rules of Order Revised. Robert Rule's does say what constitutes
a quorum, which is generally a majority.
Mrs. Schechter said that for some time she had been concerned about
the Board's minutes being presented to the Council without being
approved. She felt the Board's actions should be presented to the
Council in corrected form and had discussed this with the City Manager.
and a couple of the Counilmen.
She reported that it would be a good move so the Council's public
hearings would not be scheduled until the Board's minutes had been
approved and this would give the Council time to inspect the subject
property. She said the Council was not impressed with having zoning
steam-rolled through.
-15-
Mrs. Schechter said that in order to make this a more meaningful
Board, the Board should rule on just what constitutes a quorum.
Mrs. Schechter further stated that she had spoken to other members
of previous Planning Boards and was told that rather than have a
very heavy schedule, the Board would schedule the three upper-most
hearings.
Mr. Paden said the procedure would have to change considerably
since this would mean about four weeks before the Council would
have the results of a Planning Board meeting and it had been his
impression that the Council was interested in having the minutes
even more quickly than they did at the present time. Mrs. Schechter
said the reason they wanted them more quickly was to have more time
to inspect the subject property and this would allow more time.
Mrs. Schechter stated that the present administration was more inter-
ested in the Board's comments than simply the recommendations in
reply to a question by Mr. Keys as to whether or not the approval
of the minutes would change the recommendations.
Mrs. Schechter felt that as a matter of parliamentary procedure,
it was incorrect to submit unapproved minutes.Shewould like this
discussion to be considered by Council so the Board may have their
thinking on it since she was instructed by the Mayor to raise
the matter at the Board meeting.
Mr. Holly said that the Council has only a Saturday and a Sunday
to visit the parcels of land in question and that it was their wish
to have, if possible, two week-ends in which to study the applications.
This desire for two week-ends for study was the original idea behind
finding a possible alternate meeting date.
Mr. Keys asked if it was not actually a question of time rather than
approved or unapproved minutes. Mr. Holly said that is was not
practical to take under advisement the comments of the Board if they
had not infact been approved.
Mrs. Schechter stated that when she spoke to Mr. McConnell, he felt
that the Board should certainly be submitting corrected minutes.
Mr. Shaw asked Mr. Masson if he were a person making an application
now under present conditions, how long would it be before council
told him yes or no. Mr. Masson replied that it was running approxi-
mately 30 days at a minimum and 14 days extra if an ordinance were
required to allow for the two readings.
-16-
Mr. Shaw felt that if the Board contemplated extending the process
for the two week period, then it owed it to the public to load up
the agenda as heavily as the one tonight, if necessary. Because if
more time were taken it would be wrong to penalize the citizens
by saying the Board would only take so many cases.
Mrs. Schechter submitted that 8 weeks, even 3 months was not a long time
in zoning matters, unless it was something of an emergency nature.
Mr. Fagin concurred with Mrs. Schechter relative to the leng"th
of time Plannin:J Boards take due to his experiences with the Dade
County Planning Board. He added however, that it often seems that
while a good length of time is allowed for action, most of the
work is done two days before the end of the period.
Mr. Keys reiterated that it was his feeling that it was not a matter
of approved or unapproved minutes. It is a question of not enough time
between our meeting and the Council's meeting. The recommendations
of the Board should be held until the second meeting of the Council
after the Board meeting to allow more time for consideration. He
felt the Board should not use the purpose of approved or unapproved
~nutes to delay getting to the council. Set it up in a way that
it is delayed by the Board's own ruling.
Mr. Keys ventured that it would be a good idea to review the area the
Board had set aside for apartments and see what had been built, what
percentage had been used and what percentage is left so the Board can
give an honest answer.
Mr. shaw reported, "The Chamber of Commerce through one of its commit-
tees has done this and it will be submitted to the City Manager in
approximately a week." Mr. Paden asked whether the committee had
access to the Board's study area and Mr. Shaw replied that they had.
Mr. Schechter asked if the Chairman was aware that within the apart-
ment area in South Miami there was no housing for persons who are not
caucasian, for people who can pay the prices of the apartment.
Mr. Fagin asked the Chairman to clarify the apartment area previously
mentioned. Members of the Board explained that this was in reference
to how much area was left in the area in which the Board would prob-
ably recommend apartments, there was no rezoning involved.
Mr. Masson stated that regardless of what the Bard wanted to do
about the minutes, it will take an amendment to the ordinance that
created the Board because it clearly states that the minutes and
proceedings of the Board will be filed with the city Clerk immediately.
-17-
Mrs. Schechter said she was aware of this and had planned to note it
this evening in hopes that a member of the Council might pick it up.
Mr. Paden mentioned that he may not be present at the next meeting.
Mr. Shaw reported that there is a Ninth Annual Planning Conference
in Tampa starting May 1st.
Mr, Keys said that he recalled that Mr. James Bowman had a petition
for rezoning in the Lee Park area. He asked if it was ever submitted.
Mr. Masson said that it was on the agenda for the next meeting.
Mr. Keys felt that the Board should form a committee to study the
Lee Park area. independently.
Mr. Shaw appointed a committee in accordance with Mr. Keys request
consisting of Mr. Keys, Mr. yakely and Mr. Fagin.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at
10:40 P.M.
-18-